Claimant v Hales Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that pay differentials were due to different roles (live-in vs visiting carers) not race. There was no evidence that colleagues compared were all white. Administrative errors in pay uplifts were due to ineptitude not discrimination. No evidence from which tribunal could infer discrimination on grounds of race.
The tribunal found no evidence that any of the conduct complained of was related to the protected characteristic of race. Where conduct did occur, it was not reasonable for it to have the effect alleged, taking into account all circumstances.
The tribunal upheld one victimisation claim: failure to include claimant's name and role on her photograph on the Wickford notice board in June 2024, four months after she issued her claim. Other victimisation claims failed as tribunal found either no detriment occurred or no link between the protected act and alleged detriment.
Facts
The claimant, a black African live-in carer employed since 2017, brought claims of race discrimination, harassment and victimisation. She alleged she was paid less than white visiting carers and had to pursue grievances annually to obtain National Living Wage increases. She also complained about holiday pay calculations, exclusion from communications, non-receipt of gifts/recognition, and post-claim detriments including her photograph on a noticeboard without her name. The respondent explained pay differentials were due to different roles (live-in vs visiting carers) and that administrative errors caused delays in pay uplifts.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all direct discrimination and harassment claims, finding pay differentials were due to different job roles not race, and administrative errors were due to ineptitude not discrimination. One victimisation claim succeeded: failure to add the claimant's name to her photograph on the Wickford noticeboard in June 2024, four months after she issued her claim. All other victimisation claims failed. Remedy to be decided at a separate hearing.
Practical note
Pay differentials between employees on different terms and conditions (live-in vs visiting carers) will not constitute discrimination if objectively justified by the different nature of the roles, even where this requires the claimant to pursue annual grievances due to employer administrative failures.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3301939/2024
- Decision date
- 3 December 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 6
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Live in carer
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No