Claimant v Lifeways Community Care Limited t/a The Lifeways Group
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found no facts from which it could reasonably be inferred that CS instructed the claimant to take the bus, or made statements to her, because of her race. CS had a cogent explanation: she believed taking the bus was in the service user's best interests. The comparator SO was not in the same circumstances. The claimant's race played no part whatsoever in CS's conduct.
The tribunal found no facts from which it could reasonably be inferred that GW dismissed the claimant because of her race. GW had a cogent and adequate explanation: she formed a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct (raising her voice in front of a service user) following a reasonable investigation commensurate with probationary status. The comparator CS was not in the same circumstances (different findings of misconduct, not a probationer). The claimant's race played no part in the dismissal decision.
The tribunal found that CS's instruction to take the bus and her statements were not inherently related to the claimant's race, and there were no facts from which this could be inferred. The statement 'none of yous would work in CD again' related solely to their refusal to take the service user by bus, not to race. GW's dismissal was not related to race but to her genuine belief in misconduct following investigation. The claims of harassment related to race all failed.
Facts
The claimant, a black Nigerian probationary support worker, was dismissed after an incident on 23 December 2024 where she had a confrontation with a white colleague (CS) in front of a service user. CS had instructed the claimant to take a service user by bus rather than taxi, believing this was in the service user's best interests. The claimant refused and became angry, raising her voice in front of the upset service user. Following investigation, the respondent's manager dismissed the claimant on 7 February 2025 for failing to act professionally and in the service user's best interests. The claimant alleged race discrimination.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims of race discrimination and harassment. The tribunal found the claimant was not a credible or reliable witness on key facts. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that CS's instruction to take the bus was motivated by the service user's best interests (financial, preference, care plan), not race. The dismissal was based on a genuine belief in misconduct (raising voice in front of service user) following reasonable investigation, and the claimant's race played no part. The tribunal found no facts from which discrimination could be inferred.
Practical note
A probationary dismissal following a workplace confrontation in front of a vulnerable service user will not amount to race discrimination where the employer can show a genuine belief in misconduct following reasonable investigation, even where the claimant disputes the factual findings and credibility is central to the case.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001004/2025
- Decision date
- 14 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Support Worker
- Salary band
- £20,000–£25,000
- Service
- 3 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No