Hunt's Food Group Ltd

Case Summary

The Employment Tribunal dismissed both claimants' claims for direct age and/or race discrimination, as well as direct age and/or race and/or marital status discrimination. The tribunal found that there was no evidence supporting any other explanation for the dismissals than those now relied on by the respondent.

The tribunal found no evidence supporting any explanation for the dismissals other than those provided by the respondent, and therefore dismissed the claimants' discrimination claims on their merits after a full hearing.

• •Did the Respondent dismiss the First Claimant because of his age?
• •Was that less favourable treatment? The Tribunal will have to decide whether the Claimant was treated worse than someone else was treated.
• •Was it because of age and/or marital status?
• •Is the Respondent able to prove a reason for the treatment occurred for a non-discriminatory reason not connected to age and/or marital status?

Case No: 1401335/2024 1401337/2024 ---1--- EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS BETWEEN Claimant Respondent MR I CERKOV (C1) MS M DZETAVECKAITE (C2) AND HUNT’S FOOD GROUP LTD JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL HELD AT: BRISTOL ON: 20 TH / 21 ST / 22 ND AUGUST 2025 EMPLOYMENT JUDGE MR P CADNEY (SITTING ALONE) MEMBERS: APPEARANCES:- FOR THE CLAIMANTS:- IN PERSON FOR THE RESPONDENT:- MS R BASTIN (SOLICITOR) INTERPTETER ; (LITHUANIAN) MS V SALADIENE (ALL DAYS) JUDGMENT The judgment of the tribunal is that:- i) The first claimant’s claims for direct age and/or race discrimination contrary to s13 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded and are dismissed. ii) The second claimant’s claims for direct age and/or race and/or marital status discrimination contrary to s13 Equality Act 2010 are not well founded and are dismissed. Case No: 1401335/2024 1401337/2024 ---2--- Reasons 1. The claimants both originally brought claims in separate but identical forms, of age discrimination and “other payments”. The claims for other payments have not been pursued. The claimants are a married couple and of Lithuanian origin and nationality. 2. A TCMPH was held on 13 th February 2025 by EJ Livesey. He recorded that in the agenda both claimants asserted claims of unfair dismissal, but that because neither had the required two years’ service these claims could not be pursued. He also recorded that in the agenda C2 asserted that she was dismissed because of her marital status. C1 had been the victim of age discrimination, and she had been dismissed because she was married to him. Although no claim for marital status discri…