Case 6003219/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Jose Alvaro Zavala Andino v Yves Salomon UK Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6003219/2024
- Decision date
- 15 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khan Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jose Alvaro Zavala Andino
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Khan heard the case at London Central on 29-30 September and 1-3 October 2025. The claimant, Jose Alvaro Zavala Andino, brought unfair dismissal and Equality Act complaints against Yves Salomon UK Ltd. The tribunal held that the complaint of direct discrimination on the ground of gender reassignment succeeded in part only, and that it was just and equitable to extend the time limit for each of the successful complaints.
The upheld allegations were the ones concerning comments about male-to-female transsexual people using female toilets, a comment and gestures about the claimant's long hair, and a disapproving comment about how the claimant looked on 8 December 2023. The remaining complaints of unfair dismissal, discrimination and harassment were dismissed. The judgment does not record any monetary award or separate remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender reassignment discrimination | Succeeded in part only on issues 4.1.4.5, 4.1.5.2 and 4.1.6.11. The judgment also says it was just and equitable to extend the time limit for each successful complaint; the text is inconsistent because the footnote reproduces the last upheld allegation as issue 4.1.6.1. | Upheld | Gender reassignment | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed in the final order; the short judgment gives no separate reasons or remedy on this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed in the final order; the judgment does not identify the harassment allegations in more detail. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.