Multi Site Hospitality Group. Large Workforce. High Litigation Exposure. Zero Losses.
A large multi site hospitality provider operating across multiple locations with a sizeable workforce. The business has an established internal HR team, above average employment processes, and a strong operational culture. Due to its size and sector, the organization operates in a high risk employment environment with frequent employee relations activity.
Over a period of time, the organisation faced 12 employment related lawsuits. These cases arose for a variety of reasons, including:
One matter linked to a newly appointed manager who had not yet completed management training.
Two opportunistic claims with no substantive merit.
Several grievances that escalated externally despite being unjustified on the facts.
Importantly, none of the claims arose because the organisation was a poor employer. The issue was exposure, scale, and the realities of operating in hospitality.
Lomond Legal worked alongside the client’s internal HR team as an extension of their function, not as a reactive litigation provider. The focus was not simply defence strategy, but risk architecture.
Every single claim was successfully defended. This was not luck, and it was not about aggressive litigation tactics. The decisive factor in each case was evidence. Clear records. Consistent process. Training documentation. Credible witnesses supported by contemporaneous notes.
In multiple cases, matters were resolved early because the documentary trail made liability unsustainable for the claimant. In others, claims proceeded but failed on the facts.
Key elements included:
Consistent documentation of decisions, conversations, and outcomes.
Clear paper trails across disciplinary, grievance, performance, and absence management.
Robust training records for managers, supervisors, and operational leaders.
Early legal input on process, not just on claims.
Alignment between HR practice, policy, and what managers actually did day to day.Everything was logged. Everything was traceable. Nothing relied on memory or informal practice.
Regulated Security Services Provider. High Risk Allegations. Zero Adverse Findings.
A regulated security services provider supplying employed security officers to client sites across multiple locations. The business operates in a highly regulated environment with mandatory minimum standards, licensing requirements, and ongoing compliance obligations. The workforce is deployed on third party premises, creating complex management and accountability lines.
Security services operate at the intersection of regulation, client instruction, and employee conduct. As a result, allegations of discrimination are a recurring risk, particularly where employees perceive treatment on site as unfair or inconsistent.
This client faced multiple discrimination related claims over time. Importantly, these claims did not arise from discriminatory policies or practices within the business. Instead, they stemmed from employees’ perceptions of treatment while working on client premises, including interactions with third party personnel and site specific rules.
Lomond Legal worked closely with the client to ensure that legal defensibility was embedded into everyday operations, with particular emphasis on regulatory compliance and evidential clarity.
Key elements included:
Clear contractual documentation defining roles, responsibilities, and reporting lines between the employer, the employee, and the client site.
Robust induction and refresher training aligned with regulatory standards and equality obligations.
Detailed incident reporting procedures distinguishing employer actions from third party conduct.
Consistent supervision records and management notes for site based issues.
Complete audit trails demonstrating compliance with mandatory licensing and minimum standards.
Where concerns were raised, investigations focused on facts, evidence, and jurisdiction, rather than assumption or informal explanation.
The client has never lost a claim. In every case, allegations were tested against contemporaneous documentation, training records, and clearly defined responsibilities. Where conduct occurred on client premises, the evidential trail demonstrated whether the employer had acted appropriately, lawfully, and proportionately.
Claims failed not because allegations were dismissed, but because the evidence did not support a finding of unlawful discrimination.
In regulated, site based industries, risk often arises from perception rather than policy. Without clear documentation, employers can be drawn into liability for actions they did not take and decisions they did not make.
Small Employer. Legacy Practices. High Value Claim Defused.
A small employer that had operated successfully for over 20 years with a stable workforce and no prior litigation. The business relied on long standing practices common to many small employers, including at will employment and informal arrangements rather than written contracts. There had been no previous disputes or complaints.
The client was faced with a lawsuit seeking damages in excess of $200,000, alleging breaches of no fewer than 11 statutory and regulatory provisions. The claim was presented in a highly technical and expansive manner, with wide ranging allegations that did not reflect the commercial or factual reality of the business.
While the overall claim value was materially overstated, there were identifiable weaknesses in the client’s documentation. These issues were not intentional, nor the result of bad faith, but arose from legacy working practices that had never previously been tested.
The client’s primary concern was exposure to disproportionate liability, escalating legal costs, and the risk of being forced into litigation they could not justify commercially.
Lomond Legal took a measured, strategic approach focused on separating genuine legal risk from inflated allegation.
Key elements included:
Detailed analysis of each alleged code violation to identify which claims had legal merit and which were boilerplate.
Early engagement with opposing counsel to challenge the credibility and valuation of the claim as pleaded.
Clear acknowledgement of limited areas of procedural weakness, without conceding liability more broadly.
Firm resistance to allegations unsupported by evidence or statutory application.
A commercial settlement strategy aligned to the true risk profile, not the headline claim value.
Rather than adopting a defensive or panicked posture, the strategy was transparent, evidence led, and proportionate.
The claim was resolved without proceeding to court.
A modest settlement was negotiated in respect of the limited elements that carried genuine risk and low monetary exposure. The remainder of the claim was effectively neutralized once the disparity between alleged breaches and actual liability was exposed.
The client avoided protracted litigation, avoided adverse findings, and avoided the risk of escalating costs, including potential exposure to the other side’s legal fees.
Small employers are often targeted with high value claims built on standardized allegations that do not reflect the true facts. Without clear advice, businesses may overestimate risk and settle for amounts that bear no relation to liability.
This case study demonstrates the importance of legal judgment. Identifying real exposure. Acknowledging genuine weaknesses. Holding firm where allegations are unsustainable.
