Background 

29th October 2021 - The London Central Employment Tribunal has unanimously upheld complaints made by Croupier Semhar Tesfagiorgis that she was discriminated against by Crown Aspinall’s on grounds of her race”.  Ms Tesfagiorgis is black British with a national ethnic origin of Eritrean.    

Shazia Khan, Founding Partner at Cole Khan Solicitors LLP, represented Semhar Tesfagiorgis since 2019.  Shazia kindly provided this case Review for Legal Island. 

Facts  

Aspinall’s was first established in 1962.  In 2011 it was acquired by Australian gaming and entertainment group, Crown Resorts.  When Ms Tesfagiorgis, who is Black British, with national ethic origin of Eritrean started working for the respondent in 2007, the predominant membership of the clientele was from the Middle East.  This shifted in recent years to the Far Eastern market.  Some of the clientele are incredibly wealthy with patrons keeping millions of pounds on deposit for their gaming sessions.  These patrons can be very demanding, and ‘player preferences’ for “white female dealers only” were routinely accommodated by Crown Aspinalls in order to further the interests of the business.   For the majority of the time that Ms Tesfagiorgis worked for the Gaming Department of the casino in Curzon Street, Mayfair, it had only 3 black employees out of approximately 100.  The three black employees were herself, Ms Fiona Esoko and Ms Selina Miebaka all of whom gave evidence to the tribunal.  There were no black male dealers/inspectors. 

Tribunal  

The tribunal heard evidence that racist and sexist demands of rich patrons of the Club were routinely accommodated.  It specifically found: ‘that the claimant and her black female colleagues were held back from going on duty because they were not “fair skinned, female dealers” or “Western looking female staff”.   

 The allegation succeeds as an act of direct race discrimination: ‘the 4 December 2019 incident – whereby patrons were requesting “fair skinned, female dealers” or “Western looking female staff only”.’ 

 The tribunal found that Ms Tesfagiorgis ‘was good at her job and was a valued employee’.  ‘She showed particular skill in customer service, she was versatile and enthusiastic.’   Despite this, she was held back from working with patrons who specified that they did not want Black female dealers. 

Act of Discrimination 

 On 4th December 2019 Crown Aspinall’s reported an incident whereby a patron had lost a further large sum and had already responded to staff with ‘direct and fairly passionate F&*k You’.   

 As the Player had specified females, Selina [Miebaka] (a black woman) was then sent to deal.   However Terence Lee, the Marketing Manager ‘said it was not a good idea; [the patron]….had communicated to Marketing with he has an Ethnic preference for dealers.  He had no choice then to accept male dealers.  The Respondent did not employ any Black male dealers.   

 The Tribunal made the following finding ‘The claimant was on duty and she was not brought on to deal because she is not white.  Mr Hennessy’s note of the incident, identified the only two other females on duty (which included the claimant) and they decided to send a white male dealer instead.  The accommodation of the request was direct race discrimination of the claimant because but for her race she would have been asked to deal to the patron.  The granting of that request was less favourable treatment by the managers because of race. 

The Tribunal found ‘that the patron was not told about the inappropriateness of his request for “females with fair skin”.  ‘They made no attempt to persuade the patron to accept a black dealer.’ 

 Indeed, Mr Hennessy of Crown Aspinalls claimed that it “would have been incendiary for me to confront the Player immediately”.   

 The Tribunal also heard evidence of refusing in June 2015 to accommodate the claimant’s request for a shift swap because a patron did not want a black female dealer.  The Tribunal found: ‘that the shift swap was refused because of the claimant’s race, she did not fit the patron’s requirement for “white female dealers only” which the respondent accommodated.  The reason the claimant was not one of the patron’s preferred dealers is because she was not white. The refusal of the shift swap was less favourable treatment of the claimant because of her race.’  The Tribunal then determined that the 2015 incidents were out of time, and they did not have jurisdiction to hear those complaints. 

 Crown Aspinalls tried to defend the claims by stating that the reason for not allowing the Claimant and her black colleagues from dealing with the patron was not because of race, ‘but because of the perception that it was necessary to accommodate patrons’ request, no matter how unreasonable, in order the further the interests of the business.’  The Tribunal dismissed this and held ‘We find that it was direct discrimination.  The reason that the claimant was not brought on to deal to the patron in June 2015 and on 4 December 2019 was because she is black.’   

Crown Aspinalls sought to rely upon the “reasonable steps” defence under section 109 Equality Act 2010.  This defence was wholly rejected by the Tribunal. 

Read the full Judgement here: 
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/607d6cba0ef43a2dbb27df45/t/618187bb2635990237978fcc/1635878845958/Ms+S+Tesfagiorgis+v+Aspinalls+Club+Ltd+29+October+2021.pdf