A florist from the UK who alleged racial discrimination following a colleague’s purported reaction to her meal failed to convince the employment tribunal. She claimed the incident involved her Muslim co-worker making ‘gagging’ sounds as she ate a ham sandwich.

Amanda Smith, who identifies as White British, filed a lawsuit against her employer, contending that Sadie Shefedun expressed disgust over her lunch. She described Shefedun as covering her mouth with her headscarf and exiting the room in response.

Smith maintained that this occurrence, along with other workplace conflicts, constituted harassment and racial discrimination against her.

Nevertheless, the Watford Employment Tribunal dismissed all of Smith’s allegations, determining that she had overstated the situation. The tribunal found no substantiated evidence of racial discrimination or harassment.

During the hearing, it was revealed that Shefedun did leave the room upon noticing Smith’s ham sandwich but did not feign illness or act with discriminatory intent.

The judges concluded that Shefedun’s response was tied to her dietary practices rather than any racial motivations concerning Smith.

Employment Judge Patrick Quill dismissed the case in full, stating there were ‘no facts from which we could conclude that Ms Shefedun’s actions were related to her own race or to [Ms Smith’s] race’.

Ms Smith worked on a zero-hours contract at Van Arthur Flower Group in Harrow, London, between March 2022 and March 2023. 

Ms Shefedun joined the business in September 2022, and the tribunal was told the pair did not have a ‘harmonious working relationship’.

Ms Smith worked on a zero-hours contract at Van Arthur Flower Group in Harrow, London, between March 2022 and March 2023

Ms Smith was later dismissed following a disagreement with her boss over shifts and took her claims of harassment, race discrimination and victimisation to tribunal – all of which were rejected.

Ms Shefedun claimed that Ms Smith made ‘racial remarks’ towards her as she was not fluent in English and wore a headscarf – however her boss claimed he had not heard them.

Ms Smith had a WhatsApp message exchange with her boss in March 2023 in which she referred to Ms Shefedun as racist and said ‘she is the instigator every time and then plays the victim’.

On that day, she had been sent home after a row in the shop and had refused to apologise.

In other message exchanges, she also asked about her nationality and how long she had been ‘working in the country’.

Ms Smith also made claims involving her ham and cheese sandwich.

She said: ‘I had a ham and cheese sandwich for lunch one day and when Sadie saw she started to make gagging gestures, as if me eating the sandwich made her feel sick, then she put her scarf over mouth, giving me a look and walked out.’

She was sacked following a disagreement with her boss about shifts in March 2023.

Ms Smith took the case to an employment tribunal in Watford which found that Ms Shefedun knew that it was a ham sandwich and walked out of the room, but was not pretending to feel ill.

Other claims including that she had tried to make Ms Smith fall over a bucket and that she had deliberately broken flowers were rejected by the tribunal.

She also claimed that Ms Shefedun had shown her videos in a foreign language and asked her to donate to charity, but when she refused, she got upset. This was not judged to have been discriminatory as showing the videos did not ‘violate Ms Smith’s dignity’.

She said that on one occasion Ms Shefedun ‘aggressively’ raised her hand to hit her – but despite being judged to be ‘factually accurate’, it was not said to be harassment.

Employment Judge Patrick Quill concluded that all complaints of harassment, direct race discrimination and victimisation should be dismissed.

He said: ‘It is well known – and it is reasonable to expect an employee to know – that various religions have some restrictions on what types of food should be eaten.

‘Some people have restrictions on what they can/will eat because of a philosophical belief that is not a religious belief.

‘There are no facts from which we could conclude that Ms Shefedun would have acted any differently if her own race or [Ms Smith’s] race had been different.

‘There are no facts from which we could conclude that Ms Shefedun’s actions were related to her own race or to [Ms Smith’s] race.

‘Even based on the assertion that [Ms Smith] asks us to draw, that Ms Shefedun covered her face and left the room because [Ms Smith] was eating a ham sandwich, that does not imply that Ms Shefedun did those things because [Ms Smith] was White British, or because [Ms Smith] was a different race to Ms Shefedun.

‘It is not unreasonable for one employee to find it objectionable that another seeks to persuade them to discuss religion at work, especially where the implication is that they are being invited to read up on the colleague’s religion, rather than simply comment on their own existing beliefs.

‘What [Ms Smith] had said about Ms Shefedun being “racist” did not influence any of [her boss’] decision-making, either consciously or unconsciously.

‘He neither retaliated against her for making the comment, nor formed the opinion that she was going to bring a claim to Employment Tribunal based on alleged racism.’