The long-running employment tribunal case involving Worldline subsidiary Payone GmbH and others (3303093/2021), a case involving allegations of racism, offensive conduct, and data protection breaches, is set to continue with an appeal hearing scheduled for 4 June 2025. This hearing, expected to last one day, will focus on a specific procedural matters including time limits for certain claims of racial discrimination. However, the case’s broader context includes deeply troubling accusations of discriminatory behaviour, including a “blackface” incident and the use of a shockingly offensive racial slur by then employee Florian Risch.
The Claimant
The Claimant was employed by Payone GmbH UK between 2016 and 2021, working within a team responsible for the UK including a few of the company’s largest accounts. One colleague had a sales target of £120 million annually, while the Claimant’s target was £40 million, reflecting the target volume of card transactions processed for their respective clients. Payone’s overall UK team target was £160 million per year in so far as the two UK based colleagues were concerned.
The Claimant assumed responsibility for all client accounts when a UK-based colleague left in May 2018. Contemporaneous evidence suggests this transition coincided with internal worries about the potential loss of a key client, Watches of Switzerland Group PLC (formerly Aurum Holdings ), which Payone say was identified as a “weakness” in a Payone SWOT analysis from late 2017. By 2019, Payone had lost Watches of Switzerland Group PLC (formerly Aurum Holdings), which they stated represented 20% of their Merchant Acquired Volume at the time. Payone also confirmed during proceedings that the Claimant managed 150 Foot Locker (Foot Locker EMEA) stores in Germany, as well as the Westgate Oxford Shopping Center.
Whilst there were commercial points at issue, the real issues unfolded in terms of employee relations. Starting with the 2016 blackface incident at the company party, immortalised in photographs that apparently circulated for months, suggesting that Payone’s HR team had a unique approach to harassment.
The Employment Case
The Claimant’s case against Payone GmbH originated in claims of race discrimination and unfair dismissal filed in March 2021. While some of the Claimant’s claims were initially dismissed by the Employment Tribunal, permission to appeal grounds 1 and 3 was granted on 8 May 2024, by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). This decision paved the way for a full hearing on the merits of these specific grounds.
A retrial is also on the docket regarding indirect race discrimination. Apparently, Payone’s “International” team meetings were a masterclass in multilingualism… or, more accurately, monolingualism with mandatory attendance for those who didn’t speak the language. One pictures a scene of intense communication… or perhaps just a lot of confused nodding.
The upcoming hearing will concentrate solely on the Employment Tribunal’s handling of time limits for specific allegations. Payone, represented by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (UK), opposes the appeal, asserting that the Tribunal’s decisions were entirely justified. The Claimant’s grounds argue that the Tribunal erred in its application of the law regarding extensions of time for claims filed after the standard deadlines.
The EAT’s 8 May 2024 granting of permission to appeal suggests there may be some potential merit in the grounds for appeal. The 4 June 2025 hearing will provide both sides an opportunity to present their case concerning these specific legal points related to time limits.
This case has already attracted attention, and not just for the usual HR-related fireworks. We’re talking ‘Highly Sensitive‘ client related information (via meeting minutes/protocols) being given a whirlwind tour of third-party translation websites, language policies that seem designed to confuse rather than communicate, and, of course, the blackface incident.
The case is marked by serious allegations of racist behaviour. One particularly disturbing incident involving racial harassment was a key focus of the tribunal’s findings, stating,
The judgment explicitly accepted that Mr. Risch, in front of the teams only black colleague, used the phrase “black man fucking a rabbit” [Tribunal judgment 252] at a company dinner. Mr. Risch’s attempt to dismiss this as merely “recounting a story” was deemed insufficient by the tribunal. The tribunal’s conclusions regarding this incident are detailed and significant [judgment paragraphs 425-427]. They state, “Given the claimant’s modest German it is more likely than not that the comment was explained in English as well as in German. He could quite easily (and reasonably) have been offended by this comment and felt demeaned as a black man hearing such a very offensive comment.“
The tribunal further noted the unnecessary and likely racially motivated inclusion of the word “black” in the description, concluding that the adjective “would not have been used if the participant in the image was white.” While the tribunal concluded that Mr. Risch did not deliberately set out to offend, they nonetheless accepted that the comment did offend and demean the Claimant. They determined that “in all the circumstances, it is reasonable for the conduct to be regarded as having the harassing effect,” thus meeting the test for direct racial harassment, and that the “comment was related to race.“
The tribunal concluded that “it is such a striking and indeed shocking comment that it is unlikely that this was invented by the claimant.” Furthermore, they stated, “There can be no doubt that what was described was likely to offend. We accept that the claimant was offended and felt demeaned as a black person. It was reasonable for that comment to have that effect.“
Loopline understands that, in the Claimant’s opinion, the perpertrator may have believed he had made a “clean getaway” after making the comments at his belated leaving do. His remarks in June 2019 were made when he was employed under the banner of Worldline Merchant Services and, at the time, seemed safely beyond Payone’s reach. But call it fate—or just an inconvenient corporate merger—had other plans. When Worldline joined forces with Ingenico in 2020, Mr. Risch inadvertently found himself back under Payone’s roof. It’s a reminder that in the world of mergers and acquisitions, even past words can come back to revisit you.
This incident, coupled with the “blackface night” at Payone in November 2016, as described to Loopline by the Claimant, raises profound concerns about the workplace culture at Payone during that period. These two incidents, taken together, paint a picture that demands close scrutiny as this case progresses. Payone, however, saw things differently. Payone found themselves entrenched in the position that Mr. Risch’s use of highly offensive racial slurs did not constitute racial harassment.
Loopline media will be at the heart of reporting on the outcome of the full appeal on 4 June 2025.
In a seperate legal dispute between Payone, Rodl and Partner Limited the same Claimant, the matter has been adjourned pending the outcome of an appeal in a related case, Farley v Paymaster (1836) Limited. The claimant alleges that Payone GmbH breached data protection law by mishandling their personal data comprising highly sensitive Special Category Data [H45YJ314].
The court stayed Payone’s 17 January 2025 attempt to strike out the claim. The claim is which was supported by findings from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) which confirmed that
“I have considered the information available in relation to the security of [Claimant’s] personal data and I am of the view that you have not complied with your data protection obligations. This is because your organisation did not keep [Claimant’s] personal details secure, which has resulted in personal information being sent to an incorrect address.”
The case raises important questions about data protection and the definition of “damage” under the UK GDPR, with potential implications for future data breach claims. Loopline media will keep you posted in this matter.
