Case 3202097/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Thomas v Erno’s BV (Trading as G-Star Raw) — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202097/2019
- Decision date
- 13 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Members
- Panel members
- Mr. T Burrows, Ms A Berry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr N Thomas claimed direct race discrimination by Erno’s BV (trading as G-Star Raw) in relation to four matters: questioning at the 23 May 2019 investigation meeting about cash-handling processes, not receiving a salary increase, the respondent’s report to the police about the missing cash, and not being transferred to another store. The tribunal heard that the respondent was investigating a Stratford store cash discrepancy that began as an accounting concern of about £130,000 and later appeared, on the respondent’s analysis, to be about £170,000. The claimant was also separately arrested on 16 May 2019 for theft by finding of goods worth £193, was later found not guilty in the magistrates’ court, and was then barred from the Westfield site so he could not attend work.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim under s.13 EqA 2010. The tribunal dismissed it on the merits and also held that, even if time points were relevant, the complaints failed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong burden of proof approach
- Madarassy v Nomura
- s.23(1) Equality Act 2010
- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Hendricks
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Southwark LBC v Afolabi
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.