’Plus size’ discrimination claim struck out

Tuesday 23 January 2018

A receptionist who said that she was treated less favourably, and ultimately fired from work, because she is ‘plus size’ has had a claim against her employer struck out by a tribunal.

Miss Eleanor Mahoney, who worked at the JTC Group for two months in June and July 2017, argued that she was unfairly dismissed and subjected to sexist treatment in the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal in October last year.

During a hearing, Miss Mahoney told Chairman Hilary Griffin that her employer had treated her differently to her colleague because she was larger.

Prior to being dismissed, Miss Mahoney explained that she had been told that she was not sufficiently smartly dressed for a working environment during a probationary meeting.

To Miss Mahoney, this comment was “upsetting”, and she felt that she was being compared to the other female receptionist.

She was also aggrieved because this was explained to her while she was wearing the same outfit she had sported during her interview when she was offered the position.

She said that there was no ‘formal’ dress code, and that the allegation had been unfair – moreover, she felt that the comment – and her later dismissal – was centred on the fact that she is a larger woman.

But her employer contended this. The respondents – Mr Mark Jones and Head of HR Carol Graham – were clear that there was a clear dress code for both men and women: ‘smart business dress’. 

They added that, while Miss Mahoney’s outfit had been acceptable on the day of her probationary meeting, she had not been consistently smart.

Despite this, Miss Mahoney claimed that what had happened to her amounted to discrimination because she felt that she was being treated “less favourably” because of her size. While she did not claim the dress code was biased against women or inappropriate, she made a Discrimination Law claim under the protected characteristic of sex to the tribunal, as size or physical attributes do not form part of the law.

Nonetheless, when questioned by the tribunal, they found her answers “muddled and inconsistent.”

"Quite simply, the Claimant believed that she had been discriminated against because of her size and she was unable to provide any details supporting the claim that the less favourable treatment was because of sex.

"It was clear, therefore, that the alleged less favourable treatment was not based on any protected characteristic contained in the Discrimination Law.The Discrimination Law does not protect individuals from less favourable treatment due to their size or weight. Simply being treated unfairly does not, of itself, amount to discriminatory behaviour," Mrs Griffin wrote in her judgement.

Miss Mahoney's claims were subsequently struck out.