Case 3330899/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person. For the v Respondent — 2017
- Case reference
- 3330899/2018
- Decision date
- 9 December 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Members
- Venue
- Norwich
- Panel members
- Mr V Brazkiewicz, Mrs L Daniels
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person. For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs J Belin-Roux worked for B&Q plc as a home fit co-ordinator from 17 July 2017 until she resigned on 26 June 2018. She brought Equality Act claims for race and sexual orientation, including direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation. The tribunal noted that the claim was issued on 24 June 2018 and that allegations before 24 January 2018 were out of time unless they formed part of a continuing act or it was just and equitable to extend time.
The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant was treated less favourably because she was French or a lesbian. It accepted that her desk position was altered when she raised it, that French keyboard settings were allowed, and that there was no reproach over the keyboard change. It also rejected the suggestion that colleagues mocked her nationality or sexuality, including the references to 'pain au chocolat' and 'toodles'.
The Christmas party incident with Mr Piper was treated as a single out-of-time event, and the tribunal refused to extend time. It found that Mr Piper was not an employee or agent of the respondent, that the claimant had asked for the matter to be dealt with informally, and that he later apologised in writing and gave flowers. Even if the incident had been in time, the tribunal found the exchange about procreation and a 'rabbit' did not amount to direct discrimination or harassment.
The tribunal found that the claimant was suspended in January 2018 because she twice told Mrs Reinbach to 'fuck off', not because of race or sexual orientation, and that a hypothetical comparator who directly swore at a colleague would have been treated the same way. It also rejected victimisation: the grievance was the protected act relied on, but the later May 2018 suspension followed an aggressive outburst towards another colleague and not the grievance. The tribunal recorded that some grievance issues, including training, expenses and sick pay, were accepted as needing improvement, but it found no discrimination, harassment or victimisation and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination allegation based on the claimant being French. The tribunal found no less favourable treatment in relation to the desk position, French keyboard settings, alleged mocking of nationality, the Christmas party incident, or suspension, and refused to extend time for the pre-24 January 2018 allegations. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Direct discrimination allegation based on the claimant being a lesbian. The tribunal found no evidence that she had to justify her existence as a lesbian or was treated less favourably because of sexual orientation. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Harassment | Harassment allegation related to race/nationality. The tribunal found no unwanted conduct related to race and rejected the alleged mocking, including the 'pain au chocolat' incident. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment allegation related to sexual orientation. The tribunal found no evidence of unwanted conduct related to sexual orientation. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Victimisation | The protected act relied on was the grievance dated 14 January 2018. The tribunal found the later suspension in May 2018 was because of the claimant's aggressive outburst towards a colleague, not because she had raised a grievance. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.13 direct discrimination
- s.26 harassment
- s.27 victimisation
- s.136 burden of proof
- continuing act
- just and equitable to extend time
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.