Tuesday, November 10, 2015



Locksmith must pay out £7,500 for worker's 'discriminatory gestures' at homosexual customer following ten-month dispute over refund

"Discriminatory gestures"??

A locksmith's firm has been told to pay a gay man compensation after a court decided he had been a victim of a staff member’s ‘discriminatory’ gestures.

The customer, who has been named only as Tim, had gone to the business several times over a period of ten months to resolve a dispute over a refund.

Southend County Court heard that locksmith Peter Edwards – whose mother Angela owns the firm – blew a ‘sarcastic kiss’ at the disgruntled customer when he walked out.

This was apparently followed up with more than 20 ‘homophobic’ gestures over the next few months, ranging from winking to ‘vile and vulgar gesturing’.

Tim decided to take the firm to civil court, where he was awarded £7,500 in compensation from Taylor Edwards Ltd of Southend, Essex, under the Equality Act 2010 – which prevents anyone supplying goods or services from discriminating against customers on grounds including race, religion, disability and sexual orientation.

Although several of the alleged incidents took place while Mr Edwards was taking a cigarette break outside the locksmith’s shop, he was still considered to have been acting in the course of his employment.

A judge ruled that Tim’s distress had ‘not been minor’ and awarded him compensation at a hearing last month. The case is believed to be the first time a business has been ordered to pay damages for discrimination that was entirely non-verbal.

However last night the firm’s owner claimed none of the gestures had actually taken place, and insisted she lost the case because she missed a deadline to present her side of the story.

Angela Edwards, whose 30-year-old son was accused of making the gestures, said the claims were a ‘fabrication’ which followed her refusal to issue Tim a £40 refund for four patio locks when they were brought back three months after purchase, despite there being nothing wrong with them.

She claimed that her business, which has been open since 2002, will now struggle to survive – as her total bill including both sides’ legal costs and the compensation would come to more than £40,000.

The company could not afford to appeal against the decision, she said, adding: ‘We’ve been victimised and held to ransom. We don’t deserve this. I believe it’s a miscarriage of justice.’ Her son Peter went on to say: ‘The events he [Tim] described never occurred.’

SOURCE

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Homosexuals are by definition intellectually dishonest and they are vicious about any suggestion that their perverted sexual activities are improper.

Anonymous said...

The business has learned an expensive lesson in proper customer relations!

Use the Name, Luke said...

Given the dispute, I think it's possible the gestures were used—not due to the customer's sexual orientation, but because he's a hardcore jerk. (Who carries on a dispute that long, then hangs out around a store that he clearly hates to see insulting gestures? And how would they even know his sexual orientation unless he made an issue of it?)

Bird of Paradise said...

Turn the gays over to the muslim's lets see them get thrown off buildings or beheeaded

Alpha Skua said...

No less then blackmail by the PC leftists scumsuckers

Anonymous said...

I am struggling with exactly how the gay guy was discriminated against.
He obviously was not denied service. His complaint does not appear to be that he did not receive a refund because of his sexuality.
The only discrimination I can guess at is he received less pleasant customer service???
Seems pretty trivial.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it doesn't seem to be made clear whether or not the "homophobic" gestures were because the customer said he was gay, or made a point of constantly saying he was, or just because he seemed to be gay, or just because the store manager thought it was a way of antagonizing the customer whether he was gay or not. Whatever way, the store manager was very unprofessional.

Anonymous said...

Gay judge perhaps?