Tribunal awards over £74,000 for exclusion and victimisation

Leher, a casino cashier at Aspers Casino in Stratford City had over 20 years of experience within the gaming industry.

However, during her time at Aspers, Leher was consistently rejected for promotion and many requests for training were ignored or denied, despite others receiving training after having asked.

Many of those promoted and receiving training were younger than Leher.

Furthermore, no black or black-mixed heritage cashiers had been promoted by the Company, and only two black and mixed-heritage staff had been promoted to a supervisory role.

When queried by the tribunal, the Company could not provide a reason for this.

Leher had raised grievances relating to discrimination and victimisation, but to no avail.

She was even told that she could be subject to disciplinary procedures if she made any further allegations of discrimination without enough evidence.

But subsequent events appeared to show that she was treated differently by staff after the grievance.

The culmination of this was a night out in December 2018, which was organised in the presence of Leher.

Colleagues discussed going for drinks after work but Leher was the only one not invited.

The exclusion was determined to be a result of Leher having raised the grievances.

Leher later went off sick with stress, and upon her return was requested to take six weeks’ training, which was not a process similarly shared with other colleagues, some of which had only been required to complete a few hours’ worth of training.

Leher later resigned and went to the Tribunal with claims of unfair dismissal, victimisation, and discrimination based on age and race, which was upheld by the Tribunal.

On multiple occasions, Leher received different opportunities and treatment compared to her colleagues, and events showed that she experienced victimisation as a result of the grievances she raised.

She was awarded £74,113.65 by the Employment Tribunal.

Despite the night out being initiated and organised by employees, employers are still legally responsible for their employee’s behaviour while under their employment.

This meant that this snub gave further ammunition to her claims.

The Company and its employees were both liable for the claim of victimisation.