Ms O Olawepo v D&D London Ltd: 2210291/2023
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: Strike out of part of claim[1]The following complaints are struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because they have no reasonable prospect of success.[2]The references below use the numbers in the Further Information pages 56-68 hearing bundle. Direct age discrimination 2: C’s manager denying her full holiday request on grounds of business needs. 4: DL remarked as C was leaving the restaurant at the end of her shift “... she’s very quick...” 5: C being given an excessive workload as there was only one cleaner. Direct sex discrimination 2:(a) Management allowed a male toilet attendant to pass work onto C at the end of his shift/start of her shift, and(b) C was intimidated after she brought uncompleted work to management's attention, and(c) management prioritised Stephen’s holiday requests. 3: unidentified staff (a) isolated, gossiped and commented about C, including (b) about the pay disparity with Stephen 4: unidentified people (possibly guests) commented about C, including comments such as “she’s being abused and nobody cares” 5: after C complied about being given Stephens uncompleted tasks, a manager said “she won't be saying anything again, she will just be doing it” and smiled. Harassment related to age 1: Comments made by unidentified people including “she can’t cope. By the time she gets back the toilet is dirty is gain”; “they're so guilty they even have to resort to sabotage” (when C was removing pants with faeces on)” 2: Unidentified people watching/spying on her, including being told people were being given free drinks to check on her; being watched and then hearing comments such as: “I don’t want her recognising me” and “she’s supposed to check every 30 minutes”. 4: Management encouraged regular guests to gossip and comment on how she was doing her role, comments overheard including :she goes from toilet to toilet cleaning”; “it's just a scam, there’s too many people, she doesn't get any rest”; “it's a scam how can you use one cleaner for so many people”; “she’s being exploited, they're treating her like a slave”; and others (page 62). 5: Unidentified staff saying comments such as “she got deceived”; “she’s taking too much shit for the minimum wage”, and the other comments at (5). Harassment related to sex 1: multiple comments from staff including how C was being deceived and exploited; Stephen was receiving more money; her low level of tronc. Other payments 2D: Unpaid wages resulting from additional weekend guest demands. Claims which are not struck out[3]The following claims are not struck out and will proceed to a tribunal hearing: Direct age discrimination 1: isolating C by failing to invite her to 31 December Countdown party 3: Management failed to accommodate C’s request for a transfer to a reception or other role and hired a 25-year-old receptionist called Angelica on/around 22 May 2023 Direct sex discrimination 1: Management allowed a disparity in pay between C and a male toilet attendant, Stephen. Harassment related to age 3: C not being invited to Countdown party in 2023; including comments like “It’s Carlos, he said we shouldn’t call her.” Victimisation 1 & 2: All allegations of harassment will proceed to the hearing. Other payments 1 & 2 All allegations apart from 2D will proceed to a hearing. Approved by: