Couple Sues Waitrose for 'Discrimination' After They Were 'Sacked for Having Tanned Skin' — Here's the Truth

A Birmingham employment tribunal has rejected race discrimination claims brought by two Waitrose employees who alleged they were dismissed for looking 'too tanned' after an unauthorised holiday to Bulgaria. The tribunal ruled that their sacking was solely due to workplace absence, not racial bias.

Details of the Dismissal

Peter Hedger and Katerina Dimitrova, who are partners both in and outside work, sought compensation under the Equality Act 2010. They argued that a manager's comment about their tanned appearance on returning from Bulgaria indicated discrimination linked to Dimitrova's Bulgarian heritage. They further claimed a white colleague who also took unauthorised leave was given only a warning.

Tribunal documents show the couple requested leave on 2 September 2023, which was refused. Nevertheless, they travelled to Bulgaria, Dimitrova's home country, and remained abroad without informing Waitrose management.

The tribunal heard that from 9 September to 28 October, the pair communicated intermittently with their branch, but failed to disclose their location. Only on their return to the UK did they reveal they had been on holiday in Bulgaria at the end of August.

Waitrose stated a reviewing officer concluded the couple had not been transparent about their absence or notified management at the earliest opportunity. Their line managers were unaware they had travelled abroad. The John Lewis staff handbook classifies unauthorised absence as potential gross misconduct.

Tribunal Ruling

Employment Judge Naeema Choudry dismissed all discrimination claims, finding there was no reasonable prospect of success for either the race-based or nationality-based allegations, including the 'tanned skin' claim. The judge concluded the dismissals were due to unauthorised absence, not appearance or ethnicity.

Judge Choudry stated: 'The reason for dismissal was not due to the claimants being in Bulgaria, but because they were believed to be absent from work for no good reason and not to be house-hunting in the UK, because they were abroad at the relevant time, having stayed abroad after a period of authorised annual leave.'

She added: 'I am also satisfied that the allegation relating to "tanned skin" has no reasonable prospects of success and should be struck out.'

Employment Law Commentary

Employment experts have reminded employers to follow fair and consistent processes. Kate Palmer, Employment Services Director at Peninsula, told LBC: 'If there is an underlying reason that might be linked to a protected characteristic, it is important for employers to explore this further and satisfy themselves that the reason for the dismissal is not directly or indirectly because of this.'

Company Response

The John Lewis Partnership declined to comment on the specific case, citing confidentiality. However, the company reiterated that unauthorised absence is considered gross misconduct under its internal policy.

Next Steps

While the tribunal struck out all but one of the couple's claims, a remaining issue—concerning the right to be accompanied at disciplinary and appeal hearings—will proceed to a future hearing.