ZVC UK Ltd

Case Summary

The tribunal found that the claimant was discriminated against on grounds of sex in relation to two recruitment decisions (the contact centre specialist team lead role in May 2023 and a managerial role in October 2023). The claimant's unfair dismissal claim also succeeded. All other claims including race discrimination, harassment, whistleblowing detriment, wrongful dismissal, victimisation, breach of contract and unlawful deductions were dismissed. The matter was listed for a remedy hearing to determine compensation.

• •Sex discrimination in recruitment for contact centre specialist team lead role (May 2023)
• •Sex discrimination in appointment of managerial role to Mr Khan (October 2023)
• •Unfair dismissal
• •Race discrimination
• •Harassment relating to sex and/or race
• •Automatic unfair dismissal for public interest disclosure
• •Detriment for protected disclosure
• •Wrongful dismissal
• •Victimisation for protected act
• •Breach of contract - referral fee (£4500) and commission (£200,000)
• •Unlawful wage deductions

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Cecilia Canha Respondent: ZVC UK Ltd Heard at: Southampton On: 30 January and 2,3,4,5,6 and 9 and10 February 2026 Before: Employment Judge Rayner Mrs M Metcalf Mr M Richardson Representation Claimant: In Person Respondent: Ms Berry, Counsel JUDGMENT 1. The Claimant’s claims that she was discriminated against on grounds of sex in that a. The Respondent failed to give the Claimant a fair opportunity to be appointed to the role of lead of the contact centre specialist team in May 2023 and b. By the Respondent failing to appoint the Claimant to the role to which it appointed Mr. Khan in October, which the Claimant asserts was a managerial role are well founded and succeed. 2. All other claims of direct sex discrimination are not well founded and are dismissed. 3. The Claimant’s claim that she was unfairly dismissed is well founded and succeeds. 4. The Claimant’s claim that she was discriminated against on grounds of race is not well founded and is dismissed 5. The Claimant’s claims that she was harassed for reasons relating to sex and/or race are not well founded and are dismissed. 6. The Claimant’s claim that she was automatically unfairly dismissed while having made a public interest disclosure is not well founded and is dismissed 7. The Claimant’s claim that she was subject to a detriment for having made a protected disclosure are not well founded and are dismissed. 8. The Claimant’s claim that she was wrongfully dismissed is not well founded and is dismissed. 9. The Claimant’s claim that she was subject to victimisation for having done a protected act is not well founded and is dismissed. 10. The Claimant’s claims that the Respondent breached her contract by failing to pay a. A referral fee of £4500.00 b. a sum of £200,000.00 in respect of Commission are not well founded and is dismissed …