Discrimination Based on Language: Injury to Feelings Compensation Awarded to Care Assistant

Published : August 26, 2025

In Ms S Kellington-Crawford v Newlands Care Angus Ltd, a senior care assistant has been awarded over £2,500 after the employment tribunal ruled she faced racial discrimination based on language.

Below, we examine what happened and discuss how the employer breached the Equality Act 2010. We then explore employment tribunal injury to feelings awards and outline the potential compensation those who are successful could receive.

If you have experienced something similar and want to claim injury to feelings, contact Redmans Solicitors now. As specialists in the employment sector, we can analyse your circumstances, answer your queries and provide expert advice.

It only takes a moment to learn how we could help you, simply:

The Facts in Ms S Kellington-Crawford v Newlands Care Angus Ltd

Background to Discrimination Based on Language

Ms Kellington-Crawford (“the Claimant”) worked as a care assistant for Newlands Care Angus Ltd (“the Respondent”) from 14 February 2022. Most of her colleagues were Polish and spoke the language, but she didn’t. In October that year, she was promoted to senior care assistant.

Issues arose on 14 December, when the Claimant was invited to a ‘support supervision meeting’. She met with Ms Gosia Berent, the Respondent’s care manager, Ms Ewelina Masiak, the Respondent’s managing director, and Ms Sylwia Natzel, the Respondent’s care co-ordinator.

At the meeting, the Claimant was told she’d “put something inappropriate in a group chat,” though further details weren’t provided. Moreover, her colleagues repeatedly conferred in Polish, which, unable to speak the language, left the Claimant feeling criticised and “uncomfortable.”

Issues With Company Car

Then, on 4 January 2023, a separate dispute arose concerning a company car. The Claimant had been using one since December, but when she was about to go on annual leave, Ms Masiak asked her to return it so that other carers could use it.

The problem was that they were looking at different versions of the company contract and policy. This meant that, while the Claimant believed the Respondent ought to retrieve the car, Ms Masiak asserted that the Claimant had to return it or accept wage deductions comprising a return fee.

The following day, Ms Natzel messaged the Claimant stating that the car hadn’t been returned in “an appropriate state.” She attached photographs and noted that a cleaning bill would ensue. The Claimant, however, denied that the car was in any “worse a state” than it would be after regular use. Therefore, she believed incurring cleaning costs wasn’t justified.

Discrimination Based on Language: Claim Brought Following Dismissal

After an observation by an experienced senior care assistant, the Claimant attended a probation review meeting on 17 January. At such time, issues highlighted in the observation, including the Claimant failing to check equipment for faults before using it and having “poor hand hygiene,” were discussed.

The following day, the Respondent wrote to the Claimant, notifying her that her employment had been terminated. It cited her treatment of a colleague, failure to accurately complete documents and dispute concerning the company car as reasons. She was given a week’s notice, informed that a wage deduction would be made regarding the company car, and told of her right to appeal.

The Claimant subsequently challenged the wage deduction, which totalled £81, and the observations that had been made. She said the experienced senior care assistant wasn’t present when she completed her hygiene routine and felt they were “trying very hard to find fault with her.” Nonetheless, she was informed that the observations would be taken as accurate, as she had countersigned them without dispute at the time.

While the Claimant sent an email stating that she wished to appeal her dismissal on 23 January, a decision was made not to investigate the matter further. This was because the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) determined her complaint “fell below the relevant threshold and was unlikely to affect her fitness to practice.”

With no alternatives, the Claimant began ACAS early conciliation on 11 April before initiating employment tribunal proceedings on 4 June. Among them, she claimed unlawful deduction from wages, direct race discrimination and harassment.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Race Discrimination Based on Language and Harassment Found

Following the proceedings, the tribunal addressed the racial discrimination claim, with the Claimant relying on English nationality as her protected characteristic. One of her main complaints regarded discrimination based on language. This primarily concerned the supervision meeting on 14 December 2022, where her colleagues repeatedly conversed in Polish.

The tribunal found that, as the only non-Polish speaker present, the Claimant was treated less favourably because of race. It added that a Polish-speaking comparator could have engaged positively in the conversation and would’ve avoided inappropriate comments, since they could understand what was being said.

Furthermore, the tribunal held that this incident also constituted harassment. Under the Equality Act 2010, harassment occurs when unwanted conduct related to one’s protected characteristic has the intent or effect of violating someone’s dignity or creating an intimidating, degrading, or offensive environment for them.

In this case, the Claimant was “outnumbered” and the only one who didn’t speak Polish. Therefore, given that her performance and conduct were being reviewed, the tribunal held it reasonable for her to feel intimidated and humiliated, despite this not being the intent.

Unlawful Wage Deductions Found—Tribunal Awards £2.5k 

Moving on, the tribunal considered the alleged unlawful deductions from the Claimant’s wages. It explained that deductions are permitted only if legally required, provided for in an employment contract, or authorised in advance by an employee’s written consent.

In this case, the Respondent relied on contractual terms it said entitled it to make the deductions. However, those terms appeared only in senior care assistant contracts, not in the standard care assistant ones. Although the Claimant was promoted to senior care assistant, she was never issued the new contract.

Accordingly, the standard care assistant terms applied, and the Respondent had no entitlement to make deductions. As the Respondent had already partly repaid the sum, the tribunal held that the Claimant was owed an additional £16.97.

While the rest of the Claimant’s claims were dismissed, she was awarded a total of £2,516.97 plus interest. This comprised the unlawful deductions from wages and injury to feelings awards.

Employment Tribunal Injury to Feelings Awards

In the above claim, where Ms Kellington-Crawford won compensation after facing race discrimination based on language, an award for injury to feelings was provided. For those unaware, employment tribunals can make injury to feelings awards to recognise the emotional impact of unlawful treatment under the Equality Act 2010. The effect one faces can vary significantly, and could include distress, anxiety or humiliation.

Notably, the award aims to acknowledge the harm suffered rather than punish the employer. For instance, common discrimination in the workplace examples include being excluded from meetings because of race, facing offensive remarks about one’s age, or being denied promotion opportunities based on gender. Where such treatment breaches the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal may make an injury to feelings award.

The Vento Bands for Injury to Feelings Awards

Where employment tribunal injury to feelings awards are made, the amount provided will depend on the seriousness of the discrimination. This is where the Vento bands apply. 

Tribunals typically use the Vento guidelines to determine the level of compensation to award, based on several bands that are annually updated to account for inflation. As of 6 April 2025, the current bands are:

  • Lower Band (£1,200 to £12,100): for “less serious” cases.
  • Middle Band (£12,100 to £36,400): for cases that “do not merit an award in the upper band.”
  • Upper Band (£36,400 to £60,700): for “the most serious cases,” with only exceptional cases exceeding this limit.

By placing cases into these bands, tribunals ensure consistency while tailoring the award to the actual impact on the individual. In Ms Kellington-Crawford’s case, the tribunal placed her injury to feelings compensation within the lower band, reflecting the seriousness of the discrimination while recognising it was limited in scope.

Claim Injury to Feelings: Get Help with Redmans

If you’ve faced discrimination based on language, or any other form of misconduct for that matter, contact Redmans Solicitors now. Our team of employment law specialists is here to help. Following a brief consultation, we can discuss your possible options and how you can proceed.

Begin your journey with us today by:

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