Claimant v Percepta UK Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that there were no primary facts from which it could determine that discrimination took place. The claimant and her actual comparator (KT, a white employee) were both dismissed during probation for similar conduct. The tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of race; the respondent acted properly in investigating both the TikTok video misconduct and the sexual harassment complaint, and disciplined all involved appropriately. The dismissal was because the investigation found a case to answer regarding breach of company policy on filming, not because of the claimant's race.
While the tribunal accepted that the claimant's complaint about the 'Body Count Incident' on 29 October 2024 was a protected act under s.27 Equality Act 2010 (alleging sexual harassment), the allegation of misconduct regarding the TikTok video had been raised earlier on 18 October 2024, before the protected act. The tribunal concluded that the dismissal was not because the claimant did a protected act, but because the respondent found following investigation that there was a case to answer regarding a serious breach of policy on filming in the workplace. As the claimant was in probation, the contract permitted dismissal without full disciplinary process. The comparator employee (who was the subject of the complaint) was also dismissed in probation.
Facts
The claimant, a black employee, worked for the respondent from July to November 2024 as a customer experience specialist. On 18 October 2024, two separate incidents occurred: a fellow worker engaged in inappropriate sexual conversation ('Body Count Incident'), and the claimant was found to have uploaded a TikTok video that appeared to be filmed at her workplace desk, breaching strict company policy prohibiting filming on the operational floor. The claimant was investigated and dismissed during probation on 13 November 2024. She formally complained about the sexual harassment on 29 October 2024. The respondent subsequently investigated her complaint and dismissed the white comparator employee (KT) who was also in probation and involved in the Body Count Incident.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims. On direct race discrimination, it found no less favourable treatment: both the claimant and her white comparator were dismissed during probation for misconduct, and the respondent properly investigated and disciplined all employees involved in the Body Count Incident. On victimisation, while the complaint was a protected act, the tribunal found the dismissal was not because of that act but because of the earlier misconduct allegation regarding filming at work, which predated the protected act and constituted a serious breach of policy.
Practical note
A dismissal during probation for policy breach is not victimisation where the misconduct allegation predated the protected act, even if the employer later upheld the discrimination complaint and dismissed the comparator.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6001909/2025
- Decision date
- 7 November 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Percepta UK Ltd
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Customer Experience Specialist
- Service
- 4 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No