A black accountant at a company that owns Cartier and Montblanc was awarded damages for racial harassment after four of her colleagues refused to ride the elevator with her.
Cheryl Spragg, a Richemont UK account manager, held the elevator doors open for her colleagues, but they “deliberately ignored” her and walked past.
During the incident, the four employees of Richemont, which also owns Net-a-Porter and fashion label Chloé, even made faces at each other, according to an employment tribunal.
Ms. Spragg, who is of Jamaican origin, successfully sued the company for harassment, discrimination, and victimization based on her ethnicity.
Instead of ignoring the account manager because of her race, her coworkers claimed they were playing a “racing game” to the bottom of the London building.
The tribunal determined, however, that it constituted racial harassment, citing the fact that it was “offensive and degrading” and “violated her dignity.”
The compensation due to Ms. Spragg, who began working for Richemont in 2006, is now due.
One Malaysian Chinese employee alleged that the London Richemont office was permeated by “casual racism.”
Ms. Spragg was waiting for the elevator in May 2016 when she was approached by senior credit controller Byron Burgess and accounts employees Sara Decort, Divya Patel, and Beata Grzegorcyk-Rapacewicz.
CCTV captured Ms. Patel turning around and making a face with her mouth wide open, and Mr. Burgess allegedly made a “whipping sound.”
All of them admitted before the London court that she held the door open for them.
Ms. Spragg referred to this as ‘bullying and ostracism’ and raised it in a grievance in December 2016, stating that she was the only black member of staff at the elevator and that her coworkers refused to enter the elevator with her and acted with ‘total disregard’ for her feelings.
She told the tribunal that when she complained about the lift incident, she was told that the grievance would “take too long” and that she would be better off seeking employment elsewhere.
This investigation, according to the tribunal, was “dismissive” of race discrimination.
The HR manager who investigated the incident, Charlene Saint-Cast, told Ms. Spragg, “I might remind you that you are not the only “black employee” on your team.”
‘No allegations of racism have ever been raised by any member of staff in the past.’
But Ms Spragg raised the incident once more in January 2017 which was investigated by then global HR director Caroline Welch-Ballentine.
The tribunal found Ms Welch-Ballentine was ‘not sufficiently open minded’ and and ‘she did not probe matters with [Ms Spragg] and was content to accept the finding that had already been made, despite the footage showing differently’.
Ms Spragg was told to stop contacting HR and to delete the CCTV footage, or she would face disciplinary action, which the tribunal ruled as an act of victimisation.
The tribunal also found that she was subjected to blatant discrimination when she applied for a position as a controller in March, citing a “preference for white continental Europeans.”
In addition, she faced ‘disproportionate’ covert surveillance of her personal life as a result of her photograph being taken when Managing Director Kevin Boltman encountered her outside of work in May 2017 when she was on sick leave due to a back injury.
Regarding the elevator incident, Employment Judge Elliott determined, “Mr. Burgess’ actions were motivated by his race.” We discovered that the three junior women simply followed his lead.
‘He could not explain his behavior. We have made the conclusion that this was due to racism. Ms. Spragg was the only employee of color there at that time.
When she held the elevator door open for the other four, they marched past her in single file, with Mr. Burgess making an odd gesture and Ms. Patel making a frown.
We conclude that this action was an affront to her dignity. It was humiliating and offensive.
Judge Elliott also noted a ‘lack of sensitivity’ in the handling of Ms. Spragg’s complaints: ‘We found a lack of sensitivity about this discrimination complaint.
“We find that the respondent was astonished that someone could allege race prejudice. It had never occurred previously.
This statement, however, was made by an HR professional in a team of HR professionals, including those at the very top, who had never received training on equality and diversity and whose team was not ethnically diverse.