Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A former Retail Employee

A Retailer

Representatives

Self Represented

Inhouse Solicitor

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00075097-001

02/09/2025

The Complainant was employed as a Sales Assistant on a fixed term contract and alleged she was discriminated against and victimized arising from issues at work concerning racism, her work hours and relations with staff and management. She alleged this victimization arose directly from her reporting of racist behaviour and attempts to address systemic discrimination in the workplace.

 The Complainant commenced employment on a fixed term contract with the Respondent in May 25th 2025.  Her last working day was August 24th 2025.

At the beginning of her employment, she disclosed that she had dyslexia and requested reasonable accommodations. The Complainant was initially brought into the back office to complete training. Following the concerns she raised regarding racism in the workplace, her working arrangements changed, and she believes this formed part of the treatment she experienced afterwards.

 During her employment, she became concerned for another woman working in her department. The Complainant had experienced sexual violence in February, and she also worked at x (business name redacted)  where the guy who assaulted her. Because the colleague was very young and the Complainant did not want to alarm or frighten her, she sought advice from Ms A , who was older and worked next to them.. - During this conversation, Ms A asked the Complainant what nationality the person involved was and she responded that it did not matter what nationality he was. The Complainant explained that men of any nationality can commit sexual violence and that the issue was not about nationality but about wider social issues relating to violence against women and patriarchal systems. – They ended the conversation because the Complainant needed to return to work.

- Afterwards, she spoke to the colleague directly and asked whether she knew the person who had raped her or whether he worked with her. She asked where he was from, and the Complainant responded that he was Brazilian, while again explaining that his nationality was not relevant. She also explained that she had previously experienced sexual violence from an Irish man, showing that this issue is not connected to nationality. - She said that she did not know him, and they left the conversation there.

- Following this interaction, the Complainant noticed a change in how this colleague spoke to her and interacted with her. The Complainant initially believed this may have been because the conversation was difficult and she may also have been affected by the Complainants own experience, so she gave her space and remained professional. Whenever she wanted to speak with her, the Complainant  engaged with her normally.

During June 2025, while working on the shop floor, a customer approached the Complainant asking whether (the Respondent) sold a waterproof container that he could put his keys and phone into while swimming. - During this conversation, the customer stated: "All the immigrants steal things on the beach in X." – The Complainant responded that she did not agree with this statement and explained that theft has nothing to do with whether someone is an immigrant. – Ms A was nearby during this interaction and, in the Complainants recollection, laughed and agreed with the customer's comment. - After she challenged the customer's statement, he became aggressive towards the Complainant. – The Complainant felt shaken by the interaction and briefly removed herself from the situation to calm down and get some water. - When she returned to the counter, she said to the customer: "Excuse me, what you said to me there was racist and completely uncalled for. I would appreciate an apology for the way you just spoke to me." - A senior member of staff then instructed me to be quiet and apologised to the customer. - Shortly afterwards, her team lead, Mr. A , asked her to attend a meeting in the managers' office with  Mr. B . - During this meeting, when she raised her concerns regarding the incident and racism in the workplace, Mr. B  stated that he had never heard such a "crazy" story being raised. The Complainant felt that her concerns were dismissed rather than being taken seriously and investigated.

Further concerns regarding racist comments - Later in June, the Complainant approached Ms. A and Mr. C  because she had noticed that staff morale appeared to be very low. Several employees had expressed concerns about their working environment, and the Complainant wanted to understand whether the issues related to management or other workplace matters. -During this conversation, Ms. A stated: "That's all the foreigners. Irish people are far more banter than the foreign people. They're boring." – The Complainant responded that she disagreed and explained that she had travelled all over the world and had built friendships with people from many different backgrounds. She explained that she found people from all nationalities could be funny, welcoming and interesting in their own ways. - She stated that the issue was not related to race or nationality.

 Following these incidents, she made a complaint to Mr. A regarding her concerns about racism and her treatment in the workplace.

June 2025 (continued) Treatment following complaints - After raising concerns regarding racism and her treatment in the workplace, The Complainant experienced what she believes was victimisation. - Prior to raising these concerns, she had been working alongside several team members. Afterwards, she felt increasingly isolated and was often left working on her own. – she was assigned what she considered to be menial tasks and felt that she was being treated differently compared to before she  raised her concerns. Having to lift very heavy boxes and made to do her training at the fitting rooms despite saying she needed to do it in the back office because of her dyslexia. – she was frequently monitored by managers while working on the shop floor. – Her Manager, Mr. A  was regularly unavailable due to being on holidays during this period, and she felt that she did not have appropriate support. – She was ignored on the workplace WhatsApp group and felt excluded from workplace communication. – Mr. B  repeatedly criticised aspects of her work, which she experienced as a significant change from the treatment she received before raising her complaints. - Managers Mr.  B and Ms C and also followed her around the store and monitored her repeatedly after she had raised concern

Towards the end of June 2025, the Complainant was asked to attend multiple meetings at short notice without prior notification of the purpose of the meetings and without being offered the opportunity to have a witness or support person present. - When she raised concerns that she did not have a witness present, she was eventually allowed to go back onto the shop floor to try to find someone. - When she returned and explained that she still did not have anyone available, she felt pressured to proceed with the meetings regardless. - Meetings proceeded on two occasions with the general manager present in one with two other managers despite her expressing that she was uncomfortable attending without representation. Three men and one woman on her own is not professional especially considering what the Complainant had said about being sexually assaulted. The Manager asked her to repeat what happened to her again so he could hear for himself. (The Complainant recorded this meeting) – The Complainant  asked to leave because she did not feel comfortable sitting in front of three men without any support or representation. – She made contemporaneous audio recordings of these meetings because she felt concerned about how her concerns were being handled and wanted an accurate record of what was said and how she was treated. (These recordings were not played to the Hearing).

Bathroom incident in July - Before this incident, the Complainant had informed managers that she had a long-term ankle injury from a previous kayaking accident which can occasionally flare up. - Management were aware that, when this happened, she sometimes needed to briefly go to the bathroom to apply cream and use an ice pack so that she could continue working. - On one occasion, when her ankle was swollen and she went to the bathroom briefly, one of the managers, followed her into the bathroom. – The manager opened the cubicle door without the Complainants permission and remained there despite her asking her to leave. - This caused her significant distress as she felt her privacy had been violated. – The Manager stated that she was checking because there was glass and she needed to ensure everything was okay. However, the Complainant had not reported any issue involving glass and had only intended to rest her ankle for a few minutes. - Staff were required to remain on their feet for approximately eight hours, and she felt she needed a short period to manage her injury. – The Complainant found this incident extremely intrusive. She also felt this was not an isolated experience, as she was aware of other staff members experiencing similar monitoring behaviour.

One of the managers (Ms. D) at one of the staff parties at the store started taking pictures of the Complainant on her phone and using Snapchat to distort her face and made her look ugly. She started walking around showing everyone and laughing over at the Complainant which made her upset. She asked her what she was doing and to try fit in as she was new she laughed it off but this really hurt. She put it into their group chat on what's app to show others what she was doing and pretended to laugh but the Complainant was really upset over this childishness. She was also friends with the racist Ms. A.

 By July 2025, the ongoing issues the Complainant had experienced in the workplace, including feeling that her concerns regarding racism, her treatment, and her requests for support were being dismissed, had a significant impact on her mental health and wellbeing. – She began experiencing burnout and felt unable to continue working her previous hours. - As a result, she reduced her hours to part-time in July 2025 because of the impact the situation was having on her mental health. – She stated she had supporting documentation from her GP regarding the impact this period had on her health. – She continued to feel that her concerns were not being properly acknowledged or addressed and that her experiences were being minimised rather than investigated. – She emailed HR regarding:

* her dyslexia and the reasonable accommodations she had requested;

* the treatment she had experienced after raising concerns about racism;

* the victimisation she believed she was experiencing;

* the impact the situation was having on her mental health;

and requests regarding changes to her hours and working arrangements.

Despite raising these concerns, she received no substantive response from HR and no meaningful investigation or support was provided. - There was a heatwave the month of July and for the few weeks they were working there was no air conditioning. Many workers felt faint and very unwell. She alleged the manager Mr D.  never helped staff despite the heat. Just sat outside the store while staff melted inside. The Complainant found this very unprofessional. Its also worrying that the company do not have protocols in place when the temperature goes above 22 degrees as it's deemed an emergency. –

An emergency alarm goes off every Sunday to alert staff for a fire drill evacuation. Usually all the managers would have staff just continue working while the alarm was going off. But one week they had everyone evacuate the building. The Complainant wasn't notified and since she was early and work had not started yet she was talking on her phone. She assumed everyone was around but it turns out the managers saw her and never asked her to leave with them. This was again after she reported the racism. She was very upset over this as she felt once again excluded. – Mr. E one of the younger staff members while outside in the loading dock started talking about how Chinese people all look the same and that the food is rotten. The Complainant brought him aside and said that she didn't appreciate the comment he made and that it was racist. They left it at that and the Complainant didn't make the managers aware as she was afraid to say anything else because of how she was treated the first time.

 On 2 August 2025, the Complainant received an email from Mr. A  summarising a previous meeting. She believes parts of this summary did not accurately reflect what had occurred - The email stated that the "crazy" comment had been misunderstood. However, when she originally raised concerns regarding racism and the treatment she had experienced, Mr. B  had described her complaint as a "crazy" story. She felt that this response dismissed her concerns rather than addressing them. (The complainant had recorded this but was not played at the Hearing) - The email also referred to concerns regarding WhatsApp/video claims. – The Complainant had shown two people and Mr. A  himself a video of him singing and told him he was a very good singer and that she was surprised and very impressed. She offered him a complement. - The people who were friends with Ms. A, the person being racist heard that she had showed the video to two people  she  trusted and looked it up. They told Mr. A  that she was showing it to everyone. He approached the Complainant and asked why she had shown it to other colleagues and he was told by the racists friends that she was harassing him. – She explained that she had shown the video because she genuinely thought he was a good singer and that there was no negative intention behind it. - When Mr. A  explained that he was now uncomfortable with showing the video, she apologised immediately and they left it at that. He also emailed her to say that it was fine and over with. - The email also referred to HR involvement. – To the Complainants knowledge, HR had not investigated her complaint regarding racism and had not provided any response to her concerns. Nor acknowledged that a racism and inclusion course would be introduced into the workplace.

August 2025 Manual handling training and injury - During her employment, manual handling training was delayed for several months despite her being required to regularly lift and carry heavy boxes. – She carried out manual handling duties from the beginning of her employment without having received the appropriate training. -She only received manual handling training towards the end of her employment. - During this period, she strained her back due to the amount of lifting required, particularly when she was left working alone and had to manage large amounts of stock. At the time, she did not attend a doctor regarding her back injury because she could not afford to do so.

 Ending of employment. The Complainants contract was due to continue until 28 September 2025. During August 2025, her Team lead  called her into his office and asked whether she wanted to finish employment early. - He stated that because she was starting her Master's degree, he thought she might need time to prepare. - He suggested ending her employment at the end of August while paying her  until 28 September 2025. -She told him that she did not want to finish early and questioned why this was being suggested. – She asked whether this was connected to the concerns she had raised regarding racism and her treatment in the workplace. - The employment ended in August 2025 rather than on the contractual end date of 28 September 2025. – The Complainant believes that the treatment she experienced after raising concerns, including the failure to properly address her complaints, the impact on her mental health, and the way her employment ended, contributed to the ending of her employment.

The Respondent completely rejects all claims of penalisation, victimisation, and discrimination brought the Complainant under Section 77 and Section 74 of the Employment Equality Acts. The Respondent maintains a strict zero-settlement position regarding financial compensation.

The internal, contemporaneous material evidence establishes that all management interactions were legitimate, proportionate conduct, performance, and health and safety responses. The Complainant was never penalised or victimised; rather, management repeatedly accommodated her preferences and sought to engage constructively on training, health and safety, and workplace adjustments.

The Complainant’s fixed-term employment concluded naturally according to its original parameters, and all contractual and statutory entitlements were fully discharged.

REBUTTAL OF CONTRACT SHORTENING & "FORCED" REDUCTIONS

The Complainant alleges that she was forced into reduced hours as a form of victimisation. In truth, on 16 June 2025, the Complainant explicitly requested to reduce her working hours from full-time (40 hours) to part-time (16 hours per week) to accommodate her personal development and upcoming Master’s degree. Department Manager Mr. A  initially intended to decline this due to floor cover requirements, but ultimately granted the reduction to support her educational pursuits.

The Complainant’s contract possessed a fixed expiration date of 27 September 2025. On 15 August 2025, management extended a supportive option allowing her to finish physical floor shifts on 7 September 2025, using accrued paid annual leave to focus on her Master's preparations, while remaining on full payroll through her natural contract end date of 27 September 2025.

On 23 August 2025, the Complainant explicitly acknowledged in writing that her initial assertion of early contract termination was mistaken, stating: "My mistake I've read this wrong".

REBUTTAL OF DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

Upon her commencement on 24 May 2025, the Complainant explicitly completed and signed her onboarding collaborator form, selecting "No" regarding any disability or medical conditions requiring accommodation.

The Respondent first received formal notification of her dyslexia via a UP80 form processed by HR between 18 July and 23 July 2025. The operational window prior to her voluntary cessation of floor shifts on 23 August 2025 was precisely one month.

Operations Manager Mr. E  and Department Leader Mr. F repeatedly attempted to schedule informal reviews starting on 26 July 2025 to arrange quieter training environments and tailored support. The Complainant consistently refused to participate in these assessments, frequently walked out of meetings, and declined to cooperate.

LEGITIMATE CONDUCT RESPONSES, SAFETY BREACHES & MANUAL HANDLING

On 3 August 2025, during a store-wide fire drill, the Complainant refused to evacuate the premises. the  Duty Manager confirmed direct eye contact with her as she actively ignored intercom announcements, tannoy alarms, and floor sweepers. Her refusal delayed the safety call-off by over twice the emergency threshold, creating a severe health and safety risk.

Management intervention on 18 June 2025 was prompted by an aggressive verbal exchange between the Complainant and a customer. Independent witness statements confirmed that the customer was not aggressive, and the Complainant failed to adhere to standard retail conduct policies.

The allegation that the Complainant was forced to carry out heavy lifting without training resulting in injury is directly refuted by certified records. The Complainant was awarded her formal Manual Handling Certificate on 23 August 2025, assessed by certified instructor Mr D. Roster logs confirm 23 August 2025 was her final active day on site; she performed no manual handling duties post certification.

 REBUTTAL OF HARASSMENT, PEER DISPUTES & WITNESS COERCION

The Complainant claims her complaints regarding a coworker Ms. A, were ignored. However, when informal inquiries were opened in June and July 2025, the Complainant refused to provide specific statements, details, or names to direct management or to the Operations Manager . A formal statement naming the peer was withheld by the Complainant until 30 August 2025, after she had already ceased attending shifts.

On 29 July 2025, Ms. A submitted a formal grievance detailing severe distress after the Complainant publicly branded her a racist on store floor channels and via an unprovoked radio broadcast. Teammates reported feeling intimidated and unsafe sharing canteen space with the Complainant due to fears of retaliatory accusations.

The Complainant’s assertion that potential witnesses fear company retaliation is false and contradicted by independent evidence. A formal statement from teammate Mr. G (dated 10 July 2026) reveals that after he declined her request to give evidence for her WRC claim, the Complainant subjected him and his partner to aggressive personal insults, political slurs, and labelled him a "Respondent spy". Mr. G requested his exclusion from proceedings specifically to protect his safety from the Complainant.

REBUTTAL OF COVERT AUDIO CLAIMS & MANAGEMENT MEETINGS

The meeting involving General Manager and 2 other Managers was convened to address her operational grievances constructively. The Complainant was explicitly permitted a recess to secure a colleague as a witness on the floor, and she voluntarily chose to proceed when no colleague was available. Inquiries regarding her past experiences were raised solely to understand her expressed security concerns regarding specific individuals entering store premises, enabling management to uphold its statutory duty of care.

 The Respondent welcomes the full, unedited context of these meetings, which demonstrates complete managerial professionalism. However, the Respondent reserves its right to challenge covertly gathered recordings under procedural fairness and privacy principles.

FINAL PAYROLL & CESSATION OF EMPLOYMENT

Following her shift on 23 August 2025, the Complainant abandoned her role and failed to report for any scheduled shifts through her contract end date of 27 September 2025. As no valid medical certificates were submitted, she was recorded as "sick unpaid" in accordance with standard company policy.

Upon her contract’s natural expiration, she was fully remunerated for all active hours, and an outstanding balance of 32 accrued annual leave hours was paid out in full on her final October payroll run. No further remuneration or notice pay is legally outstanding.

CONCLUSION & REDRESS SOUGHT

The Respondent has established that its operational decisions were justified, proportionate, and fully compliant with health, safety, and equality legislation. The Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of penalisation or discrimination.

The Respondent respectfully requests that the Adjudication Officer dismiss this claim in its entirety.

The Law;

Under Section 74(2), victimisation occurs when an employee suffers dismissal or other adverse treatment by their employer as a reaction to specific protected actions. These actions include: [1]

Making a complaint of discrimination to the employer.

The Evidence

The Respondent Representative advised that the two Managers involved with dealing with the Complainant were on vacation at the time of the Hearing but they were happy to proceed with the Hearing.

The Complainant gave evidence to the Hearing. The Complainant gave evidence that a colleague asked her was it a migrant that attacked her in the past.

The Complainant advised a number of staff were being micro managed.

The Complainant gave evidence about an incident with a customer were they made a comment about migrants stealing wallets on x  beach and she approached that customer at check out about the comment and was reprimanded for doing so.

The Complainant gave evidence about not feeling safe in meeting with Managers on her own and being denied a representative for meetings with them.

The Complainant gave evidence about a Manager making a comment that they had never heard anything “”so crazy”  and that she felt she was being treated in a dismissive way.

The Complainant advised she never lodged a formal complaint about any issue.

The Complainant advised that a colleague made a comment about a Chinese food/people and she had to walk away from the conversation. She confirmed to the Hearing this was not reported to a manager.

The Complainant advised she had a reading issue and told the Manager about this and that she could not stand in front of people.

The Complainant advised she was brought to the changing room for training and this disoriented her.

The Complainant advised she had dyslexia and had issues with not being allowed into the back storeroom and being followed into the toilets by a female Manager to check on her. The Complainant advised she was asked by the Manager that they need to know if there is something wrong with her. She advised the Manager told her she had to go back to work.

The Complainant advised one Manager asked her to do things outside of her role. The Complainant advised there were 6 Départements but she was asked to work on her own and do menial tasks.

The Complainant stated she had manual handing training previously but was asked to lift heavy boxes.

The Complainant advised she was followed around a lot by two Managers and was nit picked about her work.

The Complainant talked about whats app photos being created with staff photos inserted and advised she showed staff a You Tube about her Manager singing.

The Complainant complained about her Manager going smoking outside during the hot weather and there not being enough water.

The Complainant alleged her reduction in hours was as a result of being arrested in the UK at a pro Palestine march. The Complainant advised she was not charged or convicted arising from this arrest.

The Complainant explained why she did not leave the premises when the fire alarm went off as she was in the bathroom and when she came out no one told her to leave.

The Complainant alleged her contract was terminated earlier than scheduled as an act to get rid of her.  

The Complainant alleged she got no response to her claim of racism.

The Respondent Representative, Internal Legal Counsel, cross examined the Complainant on her evidence.  The Complainant was asked to confirm that she signed a New Hire form that stated  “No“ to had she a disability. The Complainant replied she thought it was not needed to be disclosed.

With regard to training on July 23rd the Complainant was asked was it true she declined to attend planned training in a quite room. The Complainant advised she was getting frustrated at not getting another place.

It was put to the Complainant that she was offered the right to have someone present with her at the meetings but the other staff declined to go into meetings involving the Complainant. The Complainant was asked to confirm that no other employee was prepared to join her when she requested a witness at some meetings and she agreed. The Complainant was asked to confirm that a scheduled meeting was adjourned  and she never got back to them with a Witness name. The Complainant advised there were none available. The Complainant advised she was out of her comfort zone and had no representation.

It was put to the Complainant that the Respondent documentation showed that the reduction in working hours was at the request of the Complainant. The Complainant stated she asked them to be brought down to part time because she was being victimised.  The Complainant advised she had been asking for the Respondent to implement general inclusivity and diversity training. The Complainant advised if she was not feeling heard that she felt she was felling being dismissed. In response to a query about her own new business the Complainant advised she commenced it on Jan 6th 2026.

It was put to the Complainant that she left work earlier than planned and the Complainant advised this was because of Ms. M attitude towards her and no staff would talk to her.

It was put to the Complainant that she refused to formally lodge a complaint of rasicm against her colleague or Manager and she said she raised it verbally and that she was not been taken seriously.

With regard to the alleged comment by the customer about migrants stealing on a beach the Complainant was asked about her engagement with the customer and why wasn’t CCTV reviewed. She advised she was not aggressive and did not seek to pursue the issue at the time.

The Complainant confirmed she understood the fire drill processes. She said normally they do not leave the premises as they know it’s a drill.

The Complainant was asked about the Chinese comment and she said she first became aware of it when they were deliveries and a person made a  racist comment and her colleague starting crying.

Ms. J (former staff member) gave evidence she had worked with the Complainant and attended the Hearing at the request of the Complainant. Ms. J had no memory of the Complainants employment ending due to racism. Ms. J was asked had she ever been treated differently due to her nationality and she replied no except Manager S might invade her privacy ever now and again. She was asked did she know of any reports by the Complainant relating to international customers and she replied no. She was asked about Managers and advised they generally try assist staff and agreed it was standard practice to return to your station when told to do so by a Manager. She was asked was it reasonable for a Manager to monitor store staff actions and she agreed. She confirmed she was never present at meetings with the Complainant and Managers and she had no knowledge of matters discussed or grievances raised. The Complainant was asked to confirm she rated the Respondent 8/10 in her exist interview/form and she agreed she did.

The Respondent Representative stated the Complainant had not established a prima facie case of discrimination and they did not intend to offer a formal defence or call witnesses on that basis. They summarised their case outlined above and rested.

Findings

The Complainants fixed term contract was from 22/06/2025 to 27/09/2025, a period of approximately 3 months, some of which was holidays paid in lieu of working and some unpaid sick time off. The complaint was submitted on September 2nd 2025.

 During the course of the Hearing and afterwards it was my role to make out the main elements of the Complainants case as it was wide ranging. It involved her dyslexia, a customer making a remark about a foreign national stealing on a beach and subsequent confrontation, her displeasure with a colleagues response and alleged she was  racist, her Manager monitoring her assiduously, a colleague making  a comment about the quality of Chinese food/people, not having representation at meetings, whats app videos being shared, You tube videos of a Manager singing been shared by the Complainant,  her employment end date and what caused it, actions at fire alarms, management interactions, complaints about Managers actions and Training and location of same. The Complainant also submitted an email post her complaint that when she received a payment after her employment ended and alleged this was discriminatory however this issue was not raised by the Complainant at the Hearing.

I will now attempt to analyse the claim and the evidence given. In summary, the Complainant has set out a broad ranging series of issued amounting to alleged discrimination/victimisation. She alleged she was victimised but on the basic fundamentals to establish victimisation/penalisation, the Complainant was not dismissed. she was not invited to a disciplinary meeting, she was not disciplined with a warning, she had no loss of earnings and her contract ended on the date scheduled. So the Complainants case of victimisation rests on “operational”  issues arising during the course of her attendance at work and not any disciplinary action taken against her by the Respondent. Whie issues at work can form discrimination they are more difficult to sustain without clear incontestable evidence an a clear distinction needs to be proven that an action was discriminatory and intent to victimise a Complainant rather than just an operational employee/management/colleague interaction. Also formal reporting of any incident of alleged racism or victimisation is a very important (but not essential) issue to be considered.

With regard to a customer making a racist remark that the Complainant did not agree with and the Complainant confronting the customer the Complainants actions were well intentioned but not good customer relations. The Complainant left the interaction and returned to the front desk to confront the Customer. The Respondent cannot be held responsible for what a customer says and the Complainant made no formal complaint against the customer or her colleague who she alleged was racist and was not disciplined for her actions. One incidence is not evidence of the Respondent condoning racism. The correct course of action was to report the customer or colleague comment to a Manager at the time and let them deal with the issue.

If the Complainant had an issue with a fellow employee and alleging they were racist they should have reported that formally to management. The Complainant did not did so. The Complainant was invited to a meeting with management on the issue and it was discussed. It cannot be ignored that it was alleged the Complainant called the same person a racist over the store Tannoy. The Complainant was not penalised/disciplined arising from the issue. Meetings seemed to be difficult to arrange due to the lack of a supporting colleague to attend the meetings with the Complainant.

It appears the Complainant did not medically disclose her dyslexia at the commencement of her employment and in fact stated at the time she had no disability thus could not expect the Respondent to know she had a reading issue. The Complainant has a third level Degree and was about to commence a Masters so it would be a clear expectation that she should disclose her disability at the start of her employment when asked. She did disclose her reading issue after a period and while some interactions to deal with her reading disability were difficult there is no evidence of victimisation.

On interactions with staff the Complainant appears to have been as involved with sharing pictures/videos as others and while it appears it was common nothing in the interactions described to the Adjudicator could be described as discriminatory racist  practice in the workplace.

The Complainant raised a number of issues during her brief employment, in fact it seems she was constantly at odds with management and colleagues on some issue or other, but she was never invited to a disciplinary meeting and it seems she was the one who had difficulty getting a staff member to accompany her to any meeting to investigate her queries and she declined to attend an adjourned meeting. She could not get a colleague to accompany her to meetings presumably due a difficult  environment created amongst staff with the Complainants informal accusations of racism against a Colleague.

The Complainant stated a female Manager followed her into the toilets but the Complainant must have left the door open for the manager to be able to talk to her there. It would not be unreasonable that a Worker who requires frequent time away from their work station,  to address a medical issue (or as the Complainant stated to rest her foot) ,  advise their Supervisor in advance of the need to leave the workstation. It appears this medical/rest required issue was not disclosed at the commencement of employment. The Complainant seems to have taken that it was her prerogative when to take time out from the shop floor without approval to tend to her foot. The Complainant was being paid by the Respondent and they are entitled, within reason, to know what an Employee is doing and to check on and understand the cause of frequent unauthorised absences from a work station.

The Complainant requested her hours to be reduced (not as she claimed the Respondent reducing them) and was not penalised by paying her holidays due in lieu of working out her final few weeks.

The Complainant never reported alleged racist comments made by a young member of staff (a comment about Chinese food is not racist,.. some people love it others may not ..its the same as any foods) or actions by managers she appears to have had a grievance with.

Other issues the Complainant raised cannot be shown to have resulted in victimisation as there was rational explanations for the Respondents actions and some were just work related incidents and contributed to by the Complainants actions. For  example, the Complainant trying to establish she was penalised for not obeying a fire drill to leave the store does no hold water. There was evidence of constant written communications between the Complainant and Management but no formal ending/conclusion to the issues seems to have occurred by the time the Complainant left the employment.

Overall,  I find the Complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination or victimisation and her complaint is not well founded.

I find that the Complainant has not been discriminated against and her compliant is not well founded.

Discrimination