Claimant v Citizens Advice Gateshead
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant failed to establish the factual basis for most alleged detriments. Where treatment occurred (e.g., probation extension), the tribunal was satisfied it was wholly unrelated to race and was entirely due to the claimant's failure to write up case notes within required timescales despite support. The tribunal found the claims wholly without merit.
The tribunal found the claimant had not established the factual basis for most alleged conduct. Where conduct occurred (e.g., probation extension), the tribunal found it was wholly unrelated to race or colour and was due to genuine performance concerns regarding case recording timescales. The tribunal concluded the conduct was not related to the protected characteristic.
The respondent conceded the email of 02 February 2024 was a protected act. However, the tribunal found the claimant had not established the factual basis for the alleged detriments (being told to start generalist certification again, work being described as below standard). The tribunal found no detrimental treatment because of the protected act.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a Social Welfare Adviser from May 2022 on a six-month probation. She consistently failed to record case notes within the required three-day timescale despite substantial support from managers including an advice coach. Her probation was extended three times (beyond policy) because managers wanted to give her further chances to improve rather than dismiss her. She raised complaints about her personal data on the HR system believing it had been tampered with, and alleged institutional racism, but the tribunal found her concerns were based on fundamental misunderstandings of the IT systems used.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims of direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, and victimisation. The tribunal found the claimant had failed to establish the factual basis for most alleged detriments, and where treatment occurred (such as probation extensions), it was wholly unrelated to race and was due to genuine performance concerns about case recording. The tribunal described the claims as wholly without merit and made by someone with a 'deeply distrusting and suspicious mind'.
Practical note
Even where an employer breaches its own probation policy by extending probation multiple times, this will not amount to discrimination if the tribunal is satisfied the extensions were motivated by a genuine desire to support the employee and address performance concerns unrelated to any protected characteristic.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2500770/2024
- Decision date
- 2 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 6
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- charity
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Social Welfare Adviser - Level 1
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No