Case 2421134/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Safjanowska v Elior UK plc — 2018
- Case reference
- 2421134/2017
- Decision date
- 7 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hill
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms M T Dowling, Dr H Vahramian
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Safjanowska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims for race, sex and disability discrimination. It found that many of the matters complained of, including changed hours, overtime requests, kitchen tasks, deliveries, PPE and clothing arrangements, food, absence management and grievance handling, were explained by operational reasons or did not show less favourable treatment because of race or sex.
The tribunal did find that Lee Edmondson made comments referring to Polish drugs or alcohol, consistent with the respondent's partial grievance outcome. However, it found no evidence that he swore at the claimant in Polish. The tribunal accepted the respondent's defence under section 109 of the Equality Act, concluding that it had taken all reasonable steps to prevent discriminatory conduct through its diversity training and workplace procedures.
On victimisation, the tribunal found that the claimant had not made the oral complaints relied on as protected acts before the alleged detriments, so those claims failed. On disability discrimination, the only live issue was an alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments concerning support at the grievance appeal; the tribunal found the respondent had made reasonable adjustments by allowing the claimant's representative to accompany her and communicate directly with the respondent, and the appeal meeting itself did not proceed because of the claimant's ill health.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination allegations were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination allegations were dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Race-related harassment allegations were dismissed. The tribunal found racially offensive comments had been made, but accepted the respondent's section 109 all reasonable steps defence. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Sex-related harassment allegations were dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found the claimant had not done the relied-on protected acts before the alleged detriments. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The disability claim was limited to an alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to accompaniment and support at the grievance appeal. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Equality Act 2010 s13 direct discrimination
- Equality Act 2010 s26 harassment
- Equality Act 2010 s27 victimisation
- Equality Act 2010 ss20-22 and Sch 8 reasonable adjustments
- Environment Agency v Rowan [2008] ICR 218
- Smith v Churchills Stairlifts Plc [2006] IRLR 41
- Equality Act 2010 s136 burden of proof
- Igen v Wong [2005] IRLR 258
- Anya v University of Oxford [2001] IRLR 377
- Law Society v Bahl [2003] IRLR 640
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc [2007] IRLR 246
- Equality Act 2010 s109 all reasonable steps defence
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.