Chinese Solicitor Being Asked ‘Is That Chinese Law You’re Searching?’ Ruled as Harassment

Published : March 17, 2025

In Ms Lingyu Jiang v TWM Trust Corporation Limited, a Chinese solicitor succeeded with her harassment related to race claim. While the Tribunal dismissed her claims of direct race discrimination in their entirety, it upheld a single claim of race-related harassment.

The harassment claim was allowed after she was questioned, “Is this Chinese law you are searching for?” as she researched a legal matter. The Employment Tribunal believed, in comparison, a white colleague wouldn’t have been asked the same. Read on as we examine what happened and how the Tribunal came to its decision.

If you have experienced race-based harassment and have any questions or want help, contact Redmans Solicitors now. As employment law specialists, we can assess your circumstances, answer your queries, and set out your possible options.

To learn more about how we could help you, simply:

The Facts in Ms Lingyu Jiang v TWM Trust Corporation Limited

Chinese Solicitor – Background to Workplace Harassment Claim

Ms Lingyu Jiang (“the Claimant”) began working as a solicitor for TWM Trust Corporation Limited (“the Respondent”) in October 2022. She identifies as Chinese and was a recently qualified solicitor at the time of her employment.

When the Claimant started, she claimed her work was charged at £220 plus VAT, later increasing to £240, which she alleged was lower than her colleagues’ rates. For comparison, a white British colleague was said to have an hourly rate of £260 plus VAT. The newly qualified Chinese solicitor stated that this indicated she was less capable than her colleagues.

Then, in February or March 2023, the Claimant believed she’d been assigned far fewer cases than her colleague. While she was given five matters to handle, her colleague apparently received roughly 20 new files. The Claimant stated that she couldn’t understand why the work hadn’t been more evenly shared and that she “felt like an outsider,” which allegedly affected her mental well-being.

Respondent Sacks Chinese Solicitor

On 3 March, the Claimant’s probationary period was due to be reviewed. However, the Respondent’s Head of Business Law Department explained that it would be moved to the following month. The Chinese solicitor asked whether she should be aware of any concerns and asserted that none had been raised.

Later in March, while assisting the Respondent’s managing associate with one of his files, the Claimant undertook research on mergers and acquisitions. When she brought her findings to the Respondent’s managing associate, he allegedly said, “Is this Chinese law you are searching for?” This affected the Claimant, as she believed he didn’t take her or her work as seriously as her colleagues.

Despite this, the Chinese solicitor claimed that she continued to work hard, attempting to bring the Respondent more business. However, on 27 March, the Respondent’s Head of Business Law Department informed her that a meeting had been held, and it had been decided that her employment would be terminated.

She subsequently appealed this decision four days later, but the Respondent upheld her dismissal on 5 April. According to the Claimant, the appeals process was no more than a “tick-box exercise.” Consequently, she initiated Employment Tribunal proceedings, claiming direct race discrimination and harassment related to race under the Equality Act 2010.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Direct Race Discrimination Claim is Dismissed

Following the proceedings, the Employment Tribunal began by addressing the Claimant’s race discrimination claim. It acknowledged that she’d primarily been hired to handle banking law, but the Respondent had lost a major client in this sector shortly after her employment began. This meant her work shifted significantly, with a focus on corporate law, an area in which she had far less experience.

Unfortunately, due to the Claimant’s lack of competency in this area, she often required training and supervision to carry out her work. This was problematic for the Respondent. Not only did she require greater supervision than originally anticipated, but, due to recent employee departures, senior management lacked the time to support her.

That wasn’t all, though. When the Tribunal assessed her work and hourly rate, it found inconsistencies in her account. The Chinese solicitor sometimes recorded higher billable hours than her colleagues, while at other times they were lower. Furthermore, her hourly rate was actually found to be higher than her colleague’s, leading the Tribunal to determine she was “simply in error about this.”

Overall, the Tribunal found no “pattern of less favourable treatment,” concluding that race discrimination hadn’t occurred. Race had no bearing on the Respondent’s decision to dismiss, with the loss of a significant banking law client, her lack of competency in corporate law, and the Respondent’s inability to train her as the primary reasons.

Chinese Solicitor Wins Her Workplace Harassment Claim

The Tribunal then turned to the Claimant’s harassment related to race claim. Primarily, this concerned the “Is this Chinese law you are searching for?” comment. The Respondent’s managing associate denied saying this, asserting he’d asked her if she’d looked at an English law practice note.

However, the Tribunal felt there was “little to choose between those two comments.” Even if he’d said the latter, it questioned whether he would have said the same to a white British solicitor. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that “it was a racially motivated put down, said in the heat of the moment.”

To determine whether this amounted to race-based harassment, the Tribunal then considered whether it was unwanted conduct that had the purpose or effect of violating the Claimant’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her. The Tribunal quickly established that the comment was unwanted conduct and, even if it wasn’t intended, it certainly had the effect of embarrassing and humiliating her.

Notably, the Tribunal acknowledged that the isolated comment leading to the harassment claim appeared ‘out of character’ and resulted from ‘the pressure’ the Respondent’s managing associate was under at the time. The Judge further noted that this was an example of harassment “towards the bottom of the scale of seriousness.” Nonetheless, the Tribunal upheld the harassment related to race claim.

Get Help with Redmans

If, following the case involving the Chinese solicitor, you have any questions, please reach out immediately. It may be that you have faced race-based harassment or simply want to understand your employment rights better. Whatever the case, Redmans Solicitors are here to help.

Following a brief consultation, we can answer your queries and, should you have a case, discuss your possible next steps. Where legal action is advised, we can also guide you through the process to ensure you reach an optimal outcome.

So, to begin your journey with us now:

The information on this page is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.