Gifty Robinson v Smile Publications Ltd — 2024

The claimant, who described herself as black and who is Canadian of Ghanaian heritage, alleged direct race discrimination arising from her telephone sales role and her dismissal during probation. The tribunal applied the Equality Act 2010 burden of proof provisions and the authorities it cited, including Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi and Madarassy v Nomura International Plc. It heard from the claimant, her husband, and four witnesses for the respondent, and it found that the claimant’s evidence was unreliable on several material points.

The tribunal rejected the pre-dismissal race allegations in substance. It found that the GP/endometriosis discussion, the sickness-related decision to send the claimant home pending a Covid test, the frequency of one-to-ones, the comments about the claimant’s name, the alleged remarks about black people, the wig and hair allegations, the comment about “pikeys”, the remarks about accents, and the jollof-related comments were either not proved, were innocent or contextual remarks, or were not shown to be because of race. The tribunal said some matters were plainly not racist on the facts it accepted, and that several of the claimant’s accounts were not credible.

On the dismissal, the tribunal found that Jane Watkins dismissed the claimant because of the way she handled calls and because she was not right for the role, not because of race. It accepted that the dismissal was abrupt and humiliating, but held that this was part of the respondent’s general approach to dismissals and did not establish race discrimination. The tribunal also rejected the post-dismissal grievance and document-related allegations as non-discriminatory or not proved. The separate breach of contract claim failed because the claimant had been paid in lieu of notice and the tribunal found the contract permitted that course.