Mr R Sethi v Elements Personnel Services Ltd: 2300234/2018
| Judgment Date | 19 November 2019 |
| Date | 19 November 2019 |
| Published date | 27 November 2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Religion or Belief Discrimination |
Case Number: 2300234/2018
- 1 -
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
Claimant AND Respondent
Mr R Sethi Elements Personnel Services Ltd
Heard at: London Central On: 12-13 November 2019
Before: Employment Judge Stout
Mr L Tyler
Mr D Eggmore (Day 1) / Ms S Plummer (Day 2)
Representations
For the claimant: Mr M Singh (counsel, direct access)
For the respondent: No appearance or representation
JUDGMENT
(1) The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that the Respondent indirectly
discriminated against the Claimant contrary to ss 19 and 39(1)(c) of the
Equality Act 2010.
(2) The Tribunal orders the Respondent pursuant to s 124(2)(b) of the Equality
Act 2010 to make a payment of compensation to the Claimant in the sum of
£7,102.17 (comprising £1,208 loss of earnings plus interest of £96.36 and
£5,000 injury to feelings plus interest of £797.81).
(3) The Respondent is to pay that sum (£7,102.17) to the Claimant within 14
days of the date on which this judgment is sent to the parties.
Case Number: 2300234/2018
- 2 -
REASONS
Introduction
1. The Claimant is a Sikh whose home is New Zealand but who has travelled
widely seeking employment mainly in the hospitality industry. The Respondent
is a specialist agency providing temporary staff for the hospitality industry,
predominantly for 5 star hotels working within front of house food and beverage
roles. The Claimant sought employment with them in November 2017 but was
not ultimately taken on because (he says) the Respondent’s “no beards” policy
precluded him from working for the Respondent.
2. By a claim form received on 17 January 2018 (following a period of ACAS Early
Conciliation from 27 November to 27 December 2017) the Claimant claims that
the Respondent’s policy constituted indirect discrimination (contrary to s 19 of
the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010).
The Evidence and Hearing
3. The Respondent did not attend the hearing. The notice of hearing had been
sent to the Respondent’s then representative on 20 September 2019. The
Respondent had previously (on 15 October 2019) been issued with a strike-
out warning by EJ Wade for not actively pursuing the proceedings. The
Respondent’s then representative responded to that by email of 16 October
2019 confirming that the proceedings were being actively pursued.
4. On 8 November 2019 the Respondent’s representative emailed the Tribunal
and the Claimant informing the Tribunal that they were no longer acting for the
Respondent and providing an email address (for someone apparently called
“Fred”) and postal address for future correspondence with the Respondent (but
no telephone number).
5. At the start of the hearing, the Tribunal made enquiries of the Claimant. He
showed the Tribunal three emails he had sent yesterday (11 November 2019)
to the Respondent at the email address provided in which he mentioned the
dates of the hearing as 12 and 13 November 2019 and provided the
Respondent with copies of his counsel’s bundle of authorities and Skeleton
Argument. The Claimant said he had had no response from the Respondent.
The Tribunal had received no other correspondence from the Respondent. The
Judge checked on Companies House in relation to the Respondent, which
appears still to be an extant company.
6. The Claimant had travelled from New Zealand (where he now lives) especially
for the hearing. The case had previously been listed to be heard in London
South in February 2019, but was postponed and transferred to London Central
as arrangements for video evidence (for the Claimant) could not be made at
London South.
To continue reading
Request your trial