Case 3400464/2017 · Employment Tribunal
In person. For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3400464/2017
- Decision date
- 14 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Members
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
- Panel members
- Mr R Allan, Mr B Smith
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person. For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked at Tuddenham Mill as agency staff and then as a food and beverage assistant/waitress from November 2016 to April 2017. She alleged direct race, religion and disability discrimination, and the dismissal issue was not advanced as a substantive unfair dismissal claim because she accepted that she had not accrued two years' continuous service. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and Mr Malcolm Wyse and reviewed contemporaneous emails, medical records and employment documents.
On the race and religion allegations, the tribunal rejected the claimant's account of the key incidents or found that the respondent had non-discriminatory reasons for what happened. It accepted that the hotel had a clear nail varnish policy that the claimant was in breach of, that food and beverage assistants did not require till codes, that bar cleaning was part of the role, and that meal arrangements were not shown to be different because of religion. It also did not accept the allegations that Ms Cureton called the claimant 'bad breed', sat on her knee, poked her face, or that the assistant general manager struck her hand and caused her to fall, noting that those matters were not raised contemporaneously and were not proved.
On disability, the tribunal accepted that the claimant suffered from depression in 2017, but it held that the evidence did not show, at the material time, that the impairment was likely to be long-term, so she was not disabled within s.6 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal referred to s.13 Equality Act 2010, the statutory definition of disability, the 2011 disability guidance on the meaning of 'likely', and the burden of proof provisions. In the alternative, it found that even if the claimant had been disabled, the alleged treatment was not because of disability and there was no unfavourable treatment arising from disability.
The tribunal accepted that the letter of 10 April 2017 amounted in law to a dismissal, but because the claims failed and there was no successful unfair dismissal claim, no monetary award was made. All claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant accepted she had not accrued two years' continuous service, so she could not pursue an unfair dismissal claim on the merits; the dismissal complaint was advanced as discrimination instead. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of race. It accepted the respondent's evidence on the nail varnish policy, till codes, napkins, bar cleaning and staff-meal arrangements, and did not accept the alleged 'bad breed' and other incidents. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of religion or belief. It held that the challenged tasks and meal arrangements were role-based or applied to staff generally, and it did not accept the alleged incidents relied on by the claimant. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that the claimant had not shown her depression met the Equality Act definition of disability at the material time because long-term effect was not established. Alternatively, even if disabled, it found no less favourable treatment or unfavourable treatment arising from disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance on the definition of disability (2011)
- burden of proof provisions
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.