Case 2203872/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2203872/2019
- Decision date
- 3 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khan
- Panel members
- Ms C Ihnatowicz, Mr J Carroll
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Finance Manager employed from 24 June 2019, alleged direct race discrimination and breach of contract after his employment was terminated on 3 October 2019 during probation. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and Mr Roantree and considered the documentary record, including emails about bid work and the termination paperwork. It found that the claimant had been engaged in finance and budgeting work, that some meetings he complained about were operational rather than finance-focused, and that the evidence did not show that he was singled out for exclusion because of race.
On the race discrimination claim, the tribunal rejected the allegation that the claimant was deliberately excluded from client meetings because he was Black and African. It found that the comparator relied on, Mr Sparkes, had different operational responsibilities and was not in materially the same circumstances. The tribunal also found that the claimant’s dismissal was based on genuine concerns about his performance on bids and tenders, supported by contemporaneous emails and discussed with Mr Jacobs and Ms Woolsey, and that the pre-prepared dismissal letter was a procedural matter with nothing to do with race. Applying the burden of proof authorities it cited, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had not established facts from which discrimination could properly be inferred.
On the contractual issue, the tribunal held that the employment contract expressly allowed termination during probation and did not require a formal probation review before dismissal at the three-month stage. It said the probation review form for another employee did not create a contractual obligation, and the wording relied upon by the claimant pointed to a review at the end of six months or just before the end of probation. The tribunal further held that, even if a review should have taken place, the claimant had not shown any recoverable loss because the respondent would have been entitled to terminate at the next available moment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim pleaded in relation to alleged exclusion from client meetings, failure to hold a probation review and provide a review report, dismissal, and the drafting of the termination letter before the dismissal meeting. The tribunal found no facts from which less favourable treatment because of race could properly be inferred and held that the comparator relied on was materially different. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | The contractual claim concerned the absence of a probation review. The tribunal held there was no express contractual term requiring a review at the three-month stage, no implied term arose from the contract or the probation review form, and in any event no financial loss was shown. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23(1) Equality Act 2010
- s.136(2) Equality Act 2010
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Laing v Manchester City Council
- Madarassy
- Amnesty International v Ahmed
- Hewage v Grampian
- Martin v Devonshires Solicitors
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.