Case 3202243/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Visan v 1) Drone Major Limited 2) Mr R Garbett 3) Software Major Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3202243/2018
- Decision date
- 6 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barrowclough Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms M Long, Mr D Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Visan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss A Visan worked for one of the Respondents from 19 September 2017 on a salary of £36,000. The tribunal noted that earlier complaints, including unfair dismissal, constructive unfair dismissal, holiday pay and notice pay, had already been dismissed or withdrawn at a preliminary hearing on 8 April 2019. The full merits hearing concerned the remaining complaints of dismissal-related sex and pregnancy discrimination and harassment related to race and/or sex.
On the harassment allegations, the tribunal accepted that Mr Garbett had called the Claimant 'a thieving Romanian gypsy' on 10 November 2017, that he suggested on 28 February 2018 that she might accompany Mr Grinsted to the Army and Navy Club, and that there was an alleged bar remark on 6 July 2018 about dismissing an employee. It found the November remark was made and taken as a joke in the context of the parties' relationship and the workplace culture, found the February suggestion was not shown to have genuine sexual overtones, and found the July account was second-hand and not linked to race or sex. The harassment complaints were therefore dismissed.
On the dismissal complaint, the tribunal held that the burden of proof shifted because the Claimant was pregnant by 8 June 2018, Mr Garbett said he would sack her if she were pregnant, and she was dismissed four days later by email without a stated reason. It rejected Mr Garbett's late oral evidence that he had asked whether she was pregnant and that she had said no, because that had not been put to the Claimant. Even so, the tribunal found the Respondents had proved on the balance of probabilities that the dismissal was because of the Claimant's conduct and behaviour, and not because of sex or pregnancy, so the discrimination complaints were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Part of the harassment complaint pleaded as race and/or sex harassment. The tribunal accepted Mr Garbett had called the Claimant 'a thieving Romanian gypsy' on 10 November 2017, but held that in context the remark did not have the effect required by s.26 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Part of the harassment complaint pleaded as race and/or sex harassment. The tribunal rejected the contention that the 28 February 2018 club suggestion, or the later 6 July 2018 bar remark, amounted to harassment related to sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The dismissal complaint was pleaded as direct sex discrimination and/or pregnancy discrimination under ss.13 and 18 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal dismissed the sex discrimination aspect, finding the dismissal was for conduct and behaviour rather than sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal accepted the facts were enough to shift the burden of proof, but held the Respondents proved the dismissal was not because of pregnancy. It found Mr Garbett's reason for dismissal was the Claimant's conduct and behaviour, and not her pregnancy. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- ss.13 & 18 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- burden of proof shift
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.