Case 2603187/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Thompson First v L G Daniels Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2603187/2019
- Decision date
- 12 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Welch
- Venue
- Nottingham
- Panel members
- Mrs J Bonser, Mr J Purkis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Thompson First
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs L Thompson worked for L G Daniels Limited as a Creative Stylist from 31 March 2018 until her dismissal on 27 June 2019. The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was her unauthorised access to the Respondent’s computer system using the owner’s four-digit access code, which she accepted she had not been given or authorised to use. It found that the events of 12 June 2019 did not affect that decision.
The tribunal heard conflicting evidence about a meeting on 12 June 2019 in which LD raised concerns about the Claimant’s appearance and conduct. It found that LD was dissatisfied with her appearance and behaviour, including what he thought was inappropriate presentation for the salon, but did not accept that he said her hair was disgusting, her clothing was shabby, her make-up was inappropriate, or that she was told she did not have the look of an Urban Angel. It also did not accept that he stood very close to her or rubbed her back. It accepted that she was given £100 to buy work clothes and was offered a hair treatment, and found those offers were made in a supportive way.
On limitation, the tribunal held that the last act complained of was 12 June 2019 and that the discrimination claims were presented out of time. The claim form was presented on 2 November 2019, the primary time limit expired on 11 September 2019, and the ACAS early conciliation period began after that expiry. It found there was insufficient evidence to explain the delay and refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis, so it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaints relating to the 12 June events.
For completeness, the tribunal also considered the merits and found that any hypothetical comparator, including a male or under-40 employee or stylist in similar circumstances, would have been treated similarly. It accepted that some of the conduct was unwanted for the purposes of harassment, but found it was not related to age or sex. The tribunal therefore dismissed the claims of direct age discrimination, direct sex discrimination, and harassment related to age and/or sex.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal held the age discrimination complaints were presented out of time and refused to extend time under section 123 EqA 2010. In any event, it found the complained-of comments on 12 June 2019 were not proved as alleged and, alternatively, that any treatment was not because of age. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal held the sex discrimination complaints were presented out of time and refused to extend time under section 123 EqA 2010. In any event, it found the complained-of comments on 12 June 2019 were not proved as alleged and, alternatively, that any treatment was not because of sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal accepted that some conduct on 12 June 2019 was unwanted, but found it was not related to age or sex. It therefore dismissed the harassment complaint. The claim was also held to be out of time, with no just and equitable extension. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Law Society v Bahl
- Glasgow City Council v Zafar
- Seldon v Clarkson, Wright and Jakes
- O'Neill v Governors of St Thomas More
- Nazir and Aslam v Asim and Nottinghamshire Black Partnership
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Driskel v Peninsula Business Services Ltd
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link
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.