Mrs R Taylor-Hamieh v The Ritz Hotel Casino Ltd: 2201970/2019
| Judgment Date | 12 March 2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 27 March 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Sex Discrimination |
Case Number: 2201970/2019
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Mrs R Taylor-
Hamieh
V
The Ritz Hotel Casino
Limited
Heard at: London Central On: 24, 25, 26 February 2020 and 27
and 28 February 2020 (in chambers)
Before: Employment Judge Joffe
Ms L Jones
Mr T Robinson
Representation
For the Claimant: Mrs R Taylor, lay representative
For the Respondent: Ms S Cowen, counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant, contrary to sections 94
and 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996.
2. The respondent treated the claimant less favourably that it treated her
male comparator in rejecting the claimant for the position of Business
Development Manager Middle East and consequently dismissing her on 4
March 2019 and that treatment was because of the claimant’s sex,
contrary to sections 13 and 39 Equality Act 2020.
Case Number: 2201970/2019
2
3. The respondent treated the claimant unfavourably because of her
pregnancy and proposed maternity leave in rejecting the claimant for the
position of Business Development Manager Middle East and consequently
dismissing her on 4 March 2019, contrary to section 18 Equality Act 2010.
4. The respondent victimised the claimant by sending her a letter dated 7
March 2019 alleging breach of confidentiality, contrary to sections 27 and
108 Equality Act 2010.
5. The claimant’s claim of post-employment harassment related to sex is not
upheld.
6. Had there been no unlawful discrimination and no unfair dismissal, there is
a 50% chance that the claimant would have been appointed to the role of
Business Development Manager Middle East and accordingly would not
have been dismissed.
7. The hearing for remedy will take place on 29 and 31 July 2020. The
parties are advised to see whether the matter of remedy can be agreed in
part or in whole. If not, the following directions are given:
7.1 By 4 pm on 15 May 2020, the respondent will send to the claimant any
supplemental statement of Mr Herbert on which it wishes to rely dealing
with the issue described in our Reasons as ‘Polkey 2’;
7.2 By 4 pm on 12 June 2020, the claimant will send to the respondent any
supplemental statement on which she intends to rely in response to Mr
Herbert’s statement;
7.2 By 4 pm on 17 June 2020, the claimant will send the respondent an
updated schedule of loss and any supporting documents.
REASONS
Claims and issues
1. The issues were agreed at a case management hearing on 25 September
2019 and are as follows:
ERA 1996 section 99: Pregnancy or maternity dismissal
i) Was the reason or principal reason for the claimant’s dismissal pregnancy?
If so the dismissal is automatically unfair.
Case Number: 2201970/2019
3
ERA 1996 section 98: Unfair dismissal
ii) What was the principal reason for dismissal and was it a potentially fair one in
accordance with sections 98(1) and (2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
(“ERA”)? The respondent asserts that it was redundancy.
iii) If so, was the dismissal fair or unfair in accordance with ERA section 98(4),
and, in particular, in all the circumstances including the size and
administrative resources of the respondent, and in accordance with equity and
the substantial merits of the case, did the respondent act reasonably or
unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the claimant?
In considering that question, the tribunal shall consider, amongst other things,
the consultation process, the selection process and the redeployment
process.
EQA, section 13: direct discrimination because of sex
iv) It is not in dispute that the respondent:
a) Rejected the claimant for the position of Business Development
Manager Middle East on or before 4 March 2019
b) Dismissed her on 4 March 2019
c) Allowed her colleague Tarik Sheriff a 4 week trial period in that
role.
d) Subsequently appointed Tarik Sheriff to that role
v) Was that treatment “less favourable treatment”, i.e. did the respondent treat
the claimant as alleged less favourably than it treated or would have treated
others (“comparators”) in not materially different circumstances? The claimant
relies on the comparator Tarik Sheriff.
vi) If so, was this because of the claimant’s sex?
EQA section 18: pregnancy and maternity discrimination
vii) It is not in dispute that the respondent:
a) Rejected the claimant for the position of Business Development
Manager Middle East on or before 4 March 2019
b) Dismissed her on 4 March 2019
c) Allowed her colleague Tarik Sheriff a 4 week trial period in that
role.
d) Subsequently appointed Tarik Sheriff to that role
viii) Did that amount to unfavourable treatment?
ix) Was any such unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy or proposed
maternity leave.
To continue reading
Request your trial