An HMRC trainee has won over £16,500 after an Employment Tribunal found that she experienced race discrimination at work. Among other things, her manager suggested that a missing stud from her handbag could be a “listening device”.

The Claimant, referred to as Ms X in the proceedings, is of Armenian ethnicity. She comes from Abkhazia in the South Caucasus. Russian is her first language and, although she speaks fluent English, the Tribunal found that her accent could lead people to perceive her as Russian.

The Employment Tribunal upheld complaints of direct and indirect race discrimination against HMRC. Ms X received £14,000 for injury to feelings, plus £2,506.95 in interest, bringing her total race discrimination compensation to £16,506.95.

The case demonstrates that racial discrimination doesn’t necessarily have to involve explicit racist language. Assumptions, stereotypes and different treatment because of someone’s actual or perceived race can potentially breach the Equality Act 2010.

If you believe your employment rights have been breached, contact Redmans Solicitors. Our team of specialists is here to help. Following a brief chat, we can answer your queries and provide expert advice.

Get started today by:

• Calling 020 3397 3603
• Requesting a callback via our online form

What Happened to the HMRC Trainee?

Ms X had previously worked for HMRC between January 2019 and January 2020. During this time, she successfully completed her probation. She returned to HMRC on 4 July 2022 as a trainee in its Central Training Unit.

On her first day, Ms X realised that a stud had fallen from the strap of her handbag. Because trainees hadn’t yet received their full passes, her line manager, referred to in the judgment as DR, accompanied her when she returned to the room to look for it.

After she explained what she was searching for, DR remarked that the missing stud could be a “listening device”. The Tribunal concluded that this amounted to direct race discrimination. It found that the comment constituted detrimental treatment and wouldn’t have been made to trainees who weren’t perceived as Russian.

Concerns Over Her Previous Armenian Surname

The listening device comment wasn’t the only incident considered by the Tribunal. Three days after starting work, Ms X discovered that her previous surname remained visible alongside her current name on HMRC’s intranet. This was particularly serious for her because her former surname clearly connected her to her Armenian ethnicity and identified her as an Armenian from Abkhazia.

Read More: Black Lorry Driver Wins Race Discrimination Claim

Ms X had previously changed her surname following a violent attack connected to her ethnicity. The Tribunal recorded that she had been advised by the police and a lawyer to change it to protect her safety and that of her immediate family. She therefore contacted her manager and explained that linking her previous surname to her current name could compromise her safety.

Rather than simply addressing her concerns, the Tribunal found that DR questioned her extensively about the issue in an open-plan office. He questioned why she believed she was at risk and referred to his 29 years of law enforcement experience.

The Tribunal concluded that Ms X had been treated less favourably because of her race. It considered that a female trainee who had changed her name following an abusive marriage and raised similar safety concerns would have been treated differently.

HMRC’s policy of retaining previous surnames on its intranet also amounted to indirect race discrimination in Ms X’s circumstances. The Tribunal accepted that HMRC had a legitimate reason for retaining staff records, but concluded that continuing to publish a previous surname on its intranet wasn’t reasonably necessary to achieve that aim.

Ms X Was Told to Repeat Her Probation

Another significant part of the case concerned Ms X’s probation. Although she’d already completed probation while working for HMRC, her manager initially insisted she needed to complete another probationary period. Ms X provided evidence confirming that she’d already successfully completed probation.

The Tribunal also heard that two other trainees of different ethnicities who were in similar circumstances weren’t required to repeat their probation. The Tribunal noted the unnecessarily patronising and hostile tone of emails sent to Ms X and concluded that HMRC had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the difference in treatment. It therefore found that requiring her to undergo probation again amounted to direct race discrimination at work.

The Claimant Was Falsely Accused of Misconduct

The situation subsequently became more serious. In August 2022, Ms X questioned her job allocation and jokingly asked whether she could have something “less boring”.

During a later one-to-one meeting with her manager, she discussed her previous research and analysis experience, her knowledge of Europe and her Russian language skills. Her manager subsequently produced a detailed account of their conversation and attributed several statements to her which she disputed making.

The Tribunal ultimately accepted Ms X’s account and found that some of the comments attributed to her hadn’t been made. It concluded that DR had falsely accused her of misconduct.

The Tribunal considered several factors when reaching its decision, including the manager’s previous discriminatory treatment of Ms X and the fact that one of the allegations attributed to her was connected to her race. As HMRC failed to provide a satisfactory explanation demonstrating that the treatment wasn’t because of race, this allegation of direct race discrimination also succeeded.

What Did the Employment Tribunal Decide?

The Employment Tribunal unanimously concluded that Ms X’s complaints of direct and indirect race discrimination succeeded. The successful findings included the “listening device” remark, how her safety concerns about her previous surname were handled, requiring her to repeat probation, and falsely accusing her of misconduct.

However, not every complaint Ms X brought succeeded. The Tribunal dismissed her race-related harassment complaints. It also rejected several individual direct discrimination allegations where it wasn’t satisfied that the treatment occurred because of race.

This distinction is important. An employee who experiences inappropriate or unfair treatment doesn’t automatically have a successful discrimination claim. There must be sufficient connection between the treatment and a protected characteristic, or the relevant requirements for another form of discrimination must be established.

Ultimately, though, Ms X was awarded £16,506.95. Of this, £14,000 represented compensation for injury to feelings, with a further £2,506.95 awarded in interest.

What Is Race Discrimination at Work?

The Equality Act 2010 protects employees and workers from unlawful discrimination because of race. For the purposes of the Act, race can include colour, nationality and ethnic or national origins.

Protection against race discrimination at work extends beyond discrimination based on someone’s actual race. Direct discrimination can also occur because of someone’s perceived race. That was particularly relevant in Ms X’s case.

Although she was Armenian, the Tribunal recognised that she spoke English with a Russian accent and could therefore be perceived as Russian. It concluded that the listening device remark would not have been made to trainees who were not perceived to be Russian. This illustrates why employers should be cautious about stereotypes or assumptions based on someone’s accent, name, nationality or perceived ethnic background.

What Is Direct Race Discrimination?

Direct race discrimination generally occurs where a person is treated less favourably than another person because of race. The treatment doesn’t necessarily have to involve dismissal or another major employment decision.

Read More: Menopause in the Workplace: Beauty Therapist Awarded Over £30K After Wrongful Dismissal

Less favourable treatment could potentially arise in recruitment, promotions, training, disciplinary procedures, allocation of work or everyday interactions between managers and employees. A one-off incident may be sufficient.

What Is Indirect Race Discrimination?

Racial discrimination can also be indirect. Indirect discrimination can arise where an employer applies a provision, criterion or practice to everyone, but it places people sharing a particular racial characteristic at a particular disadvantage.

An employer may be able to defend an indirect discrimination claim if it can demonstrate that the provision, criterion or practice is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. In Ms X’s case, the relevant practice concerned previous surnames remaining visible on HMRC’s intranet.

The Tribunal accepted that retaining employee records served a legitimate purpose. However, it did not accept that continuing to publish former surnames on the intranet was reasonably necessary to meet HMRC’s record-keeping obligations. HMRC could instead have retained the information confidentially in HR records.

What About Racial Harassment?

Race discrimination law also protects workers against race-related harassment. Harassment can arise where someone experiences unwanted conduct related to race that has the purpose or effect of violating their dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.

Examples could potentially include racial insults, stereotypes, repeated jokes, offensive comments about someone’s accent or nationality, or other unwanted conduct connected to race.

Victimisation at Work

The Equality Act provides additional protections against victimisation. Victimisation can occur where someone suffers a detriment because they have carried out, or are believed to have carried out, a protected act connected with discrimination law. An example could include an employee making a complaint about racial discrimination and subsequently being excluded from opportunities.

What Should You Do if You Experience Race Discrimination at Work?

If someone believes they’ve experienced race discrimination at work, they should consider making a written record of what has happened. Recording the dates of incidents, what was said or done, who was involved and whether anyone witnessed the behaviour can be helpful. Relevant emails, messages, meeting notes and other documents may also become important evidence.

Following this, those affected could raise the issue informally with their manager or HR department. If the problem is serious, continues or cannot be resolved informally, however, raising a formal grievance may be required. The grievance should explain what happened, why there’s a belief that the alleged treatment was discriminatory and what is desired from the employer to resolve the situation.

It can also be sensible to seek independent employment law advice early. This is especially true if an individual is facing disciplinary action, dismissal, exclusion from opportunities, or other significant consequences.

Do Not Ignore Employment Tribunal Time Limits

Employees considering a discrimination claim should pay close attention to Employment Tribunal time limits. Currently, the usual limitation period for most Employment Tribunal claims, including discrimination claims, remains three months less one day from the relevant act.

Importantly, the Government has confirmed that the time limit for most Employment Tribunal claims will increase to six months for problems occurring on or after 1 October 2026. Employees should therefore check which deadline applies to their particular circumstances rather than assuming they have six months.

Read More: Solicitor Caught Lying About Secondary Employment: Can Employers Prohibit Moonlighting?

Furthermore, before bringing most Employment Tribunal claims, a prospective Claimant must notify Acas. Starting Acas Early Conciliation within the applicable limitation period can pause the time limit while the conciliation process takes place. Anyone considering a claim should therefore obtain advice promptly rather than waiting for an internal workplace procedure to finish.

Experienced Race Discrimination at Work? Get Help with Redmans

If you believe you have experienced race discrimination at work, racial harassment or victimisation, contact Redmans Solicitors today. Our specialist employment solicitors can assess your circumstances, explain your legal rights and advise you on your possible next steps.

If you may have grounds to pursue a discrimination claim, we can also advise you on the Employment Tribunal process, applicable time limits and the compensation that could potentially be available.

To get started on your journey with us today, please:

• Phone us directly on 020 3397 3603
• Complete our online form to request a consultation