The claimant was employed as a customer relations host for the respondent casino.   Her job was to meet and greet customers and ensure that they had an enjoyable time with a view to keeping them on the premises for the purposes of gambling.

There were a number of terms within the claimant’s contract including, keeping information about members confidential, the claimant was not permitted to meet any client or supplier outside company premises without prior permission of the Casino Director and the respondent could pay the claimant in lieu of notice upon termination.

The claimant had informed her employer of her pregnancy on the 31st December 2018.  In February 2019 the claimant was informed that the customer relations host positions were being made redundant and that process was beginning.  She was then told that there was a Business Development Manager position being established in the Middle East which was very similar to that of a customer relations host.  She went for this position alongside her colleague, Mr Sheriff.

The claimant had concerns about applying for the job in the Middle East based on a conversation, with Mr Marvin upon her appointment in 2016 during which he indicated that he did not feel it was the right place for a woman to be working alone.  Both individuals were interviewed for the position and their interview scores were exactly the same.   However, they were both rejected by the respondent on the basis that their answers lacked depth.  In evidence, witnesses for the respondent failed to give any idea of what would have been an answer with depth.

At a final meeting before the redundancy, there was a change in tack from the respondent with Mr Marvin suggesting that it would be better to keep one of the employees on and move them into the Business Development Management role.   Mr Sheriff had his meeting first where he was asked questions about the role – there was no script nor was there any scoring.  The claimant was brought in and asked questions about the role, albeit different than those from Mr Sheriff.

After an adjournment, the claimant was informed that she was being made redundant whereas Mr Sheriff was offered the position on a four-week probationary period.  The difference in questions led to some difficulties at the trial with Mr Marvin suggesting that the claimant stated she needed training for the position and that Mr Sheriff had suggested a level of income he could generate.  This was on the basis of the questions that were asked, which were markedly different.

On foot of the claimant’s dismissal, the respondent then sent a number of emails to the claimant reminding her of the confidentiality clause within her contract.  A second email was then sent about a couple of members who had been contacted by a rival club where the claimant’s husband worked.  This was on foot of a meeting that she had had with one of the members when he was still employed.

The claimant brought a number of claims including unfair dismissal and sex discrimination, both during the employment and post-employment victimisation. On the dismissal, the Tribunal held that there was a redundancy situation but that the selection process for the redeployment had been unfair.   This was on the basis that there had been a meeting convened for one purpose but followed another.  There were differences between the treatment the claimant had and that of Mr Sheriff, such as receiving feedback on the first interview and the questions that were asked in the ‘second’ interview.   It was also held that one of the reasons for this was her sex and pregnancy.  This was clear with the reluctance to allow her to travel to the Middle East because she was a woman and there was no clear explanation given for this decision.

Practical Lessons

With redundancy likely to come to the fore, this case demonstrates how not to do it.   There needs to be a proper process that is fair to all of those involved.   In this situation, the convening of a final meeting that turned into a second interview tainted the whole process.  The way in which that developed with different questions and a lack of scoring led to the successful argument that it was based upon sex and pregnancy.   Accordingly, employers should be mindful of ensuring that the process is one that is universal with all employees selected being provided with the same opportunities.
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mrs-r-taylor-hamieh-v-the-ritz-hotel-casino-ltd-2201970-2019