Agency caretaker's race and religion discrimination claims rejected after 13-day engagement
An agency caretaker who worked for only 13 days at Pimlico Academy lost his claims of direct and indirect discrimination over keys, phone use, and prayer breaks. The tribunal found no less favourable treatment.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #agency-worker
- #short-engagement
- #keys-not-provided
- #phone-use
- #prayer-break
- #dismissal
Key facts
- The claimant worked as an agency caretaker at Pimlico Academy for 13 days in June/July 2022.
- He was not given keys to the school or a full induction because the site manager believed he was only there for a short period.
- The claimant was asked to help set up exam halls, which the tribunal found was a team task.
- On 1 July 2022, the claimant could not be contacted for about an hour and was uncooperative when asked to set up desks.
- The claimant's engagement was terminated due to concerns about his availability and commitment.
- The claimant was able to pray for 5 minutes at 1pm without any restriction.
Timeline
-
Claimant starts work
Mr Bouhanna began working as an agency caretaker at Pimlico Academy, engaged through Barker Ross Group.
-
Wednesday night exam hall setup
The claimant worked late with Joe Alexander to set up the sports hall for exams, but left before the task was complete, leaving Mr Alexander to finish alone.
-
Claimant uncontactable and dismissed
The claimant could not be contacted for about an hour. When found, he was uncooperative about setting up desks. Mr Wilcock asked for his engagement to be terminated, and Mr Mahendra emailed the agency to end the assignment.
-
Claim form presented
The claimant presented a claim to the Employment Tribunal alleging direct race and religion discrimination and indirect religion discrimination.
-
Case management hearing
Employment Judge Spencer set out the issues in the claim.
-
Substantive hearing begins
The tribunal heard evidence over four days from the claimant, Alan Wilcock, Joe Alexander, and Javier Gonzalez.
-
Judgment given
The tribunal dismissed all claims, finding no discrimination.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the agency caretaker was subjected to direct race or religion discrimination, or indirect religion discrimination, in relation to his treatment and dismissal as an agency caretaker.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims of direct race and religion discrimination and indirect religion discrimination.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant was not given keys because the site manager believed he was only there for a short period, and this applied to all short-term agency workers.
- The instruction to stop using his phone at work was a reasonable management instruction, not discriminatory.
- The claimant was asked to help with team tasks, which was a normal expectation for all caretakers.
- The claimant was able to pray for 5 minutes at 1pm without any restriction, so there was no disadvantage from any break policy.
- The dismissal was due to concerns about availability and commitment, not because of race or religion.
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Short-term agency workers should expect limited induction and access, but this is not necessarily discriminatory if applied consistently.
- Employers can give reasonable instructions about phone use at work without it being discriminatory.
- If an employee can pray without restriction, there is likely no indirect discrimination from break policies.
- Dismissal for poor availability and commitment can be justified, even if the employee disputes the reasons, as long as it is not based on a protected characteristic.
This case shows how short-term agency workers may face practical limitations that are not discriminatory. The claimant, an agency caretaker of Arabic and Muslim background, worked only 13 days at Pimlico Academy. He complained that he was not given keys, was told to stop using his phone, was given dirty jobs, and was dismissed. The tribunal found these were not because of his race or religion.
What the employer did right
The school had a legitimate reason for not giving keys: the site manager thought the claimant was only there for a short period. This applied to all short-term agency workers. The instruction to stop using his phone was a reasonable management response to a concern about availability. The claimant was able to pray for 5 minutes at 1pm without restriction, so there was no disadvantage from any break policy.
What the claimant could not prove
The claimant argued he was treated less favourably than colleagues Joe Alexander and Javier Gonzalez, but the tribunal found they were not valid comparators because they had longer service and different roles. The claimant also failed to show that the reasons for his dismissal were a pretext for discrimination. The tribunal accepted the school's evidence that his engagement was ended due to concerns about his availability and commitment after he was uncontactable for an hour and uncooperative.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that not every negative treatment at work amounts to discrimination. Employees must show that the treatment was because of a protected characteristic, not just that they were treated unfairly. For agency workers with very short engagements, the employer's actions are likely to be judged against what is reasonable for that context, not against the standards for permanent staff.
Similar cases
Agency worker's multiple claims struck out: no jurisdiction and out of time
An agency worker who worked for less than two years had his unfair dismissal, unpaid wages, and breach of contract claims dismissed by the tribunal, along with human exploitation allegations which the tribunal had no power to hear.
Whistleblowing claims dismissed: council's breakdown of trust was genuine
A Community Development Manager who claimed she was dismissed for whistleblowing lost her case. The tribunal found the council's decision was due to an irretrievable breakdown in working relationships, not her protected disclosures.
Agency mental health worker's whistleblowing claim dismissed: safety concerns not a protected disclosure
An Approved Mental Health Professional who withdrew from work citing serious danger lost his whistleblowing and health and safety detriment claims. The tribunal found his concerns did not amount to a protected disclosure or a reasonable belief of imminent danger.
Production operative dismissed during long-term sick leave: unfair dismissal claim fails on service
A production operative who was dismissed while on sick leave for plantar fasciitis and depression lost her unfair dismissal claim because she had less than two years' service. All disability discrimination claims were also dismissed.