Agency lawyer's race discrimination claims against council dismissed; costs ordered
An agency Contracts and Procurement Lawyer lost her race discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims against the London Borough of Waltham Forest. The tribunal also ordered her to pay costs for pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was a qualified barrister working as an agency Contracts and Procurement Lawyer for the first respondent.
- The second respondent was the claimant's line manager, also an agency worker.
- The claimant's engagement was terminated on 15 July 2020 after a breakdown in the working relationship.
- The first respondent accepted vicarious liability for the second respondent's actions.
- The claimant's claims of direct race discrimination, harassment, and victimisation were all dismissed.
- The claimant was ordered to pay costs due to pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success and unreasonable conduct.
Timeline
-
Claimant started work
The claimant began working for the first respondent as a Contracts and Procurement Lawyer via an agency.
-
Second respondent started
Alexandra Jacobs started as the claimant's line manager.
-
Vanilla comment meeting
The claimant and second respondent met; the tribunal found the claimant used the term 'vanilla' about her writing style.
-
Glamour corner introduction
The second respondent introduced the claimant to a new colleague, referring to her as glamourous.
-
Claimant announced reduced hours
The claimant emailed the second respondent stating she would work only three days a week.
-
Claimant complained about management
The claimant sent emails to the second respondent complaining about her management style.
-
Claimant emailed Jeremy Walling
The claimant sent an informal complaint about the second respondent to Jeremy Walling.
-
Termination of engagement
The claimant's agency engagement was terminated with one week's notice due to breakdown in working relationship and reduction in agency staff.
-
Appeal sent
The claimant sent a formal appeal complaining of race discrimination.
-
Claim issued
The claimant issued proceedings in the Employment Tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant, a Black agency lawyer, was subjected to race discrimination, harassment or victimisation by her line manager and the council, including in relation to comments made and the termination of her engagement.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims against the London Borough of Waltham Forest and its line manager.
The key reasons were:
- The 'vanilla' comment and 'glamour corner' introduction were not related to race; they were about writing style and a friendly introduction.
- The termination was due to a breakdown in the working relationship and a reduction in agency staff, not because of race or any protected act.
- The claimant's complaints did not amount to protected acts for victimisation purposes.
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed. The claimant was ordered to pay costs due to pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success and unreasonable conduct.
Lessons & takeaways
- Agency workers can bring discrimination claims, but must show that the treatment was because of a protected characteristic, not just a personality clash.
- Comments that are not obviously racial in nature will not be treated as race discrimination without evidence of a racial connection.
- Termination due to a genuine breakdown in working relationships, without evidence of discrimination, is likely to be upheld by tribunals.
- Pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success can lead to a costs order, even for litigants in person.
- Keep a clear record of any comments or actions you believe are discriminatory, and seek legal advice early to assess the strength of your case.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the difficulty of proving race discrimination when the alleged comments and treatment are not overtly racial. The claimant, a qualified barrister working as an agency Contracts and Procurement Lawyer for the London Borough of Waltham Forest, argued that her line manager's use of the word 'vanilla' about her writing style and introducing her as 'glamourous' were racially motivated. The tribunal disagreed, finding these were ordinary workplace comments with no racial connotation.
The breakdown in the working relationship escalated quickly. After the claimant announced she would reduce her hours and sent complaints about her manager's style, the council terminated her engagement, citing the breakdown and a reduction in agency staff. The tribunal accepted this as a genuine non-discriminatory reason.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant might have strengthened her case by gathering contemporaneous evidence of other discriminatory treatment or by showing that other employees of a different race were treated more favourably. Instead, the tribunal found her claims were based on subjective perceptions rather than objective evidence. Her decision to pursue multiple claims against several respondents, including the umbrella employer and agency, also backfired when those claims were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case serves as a reminder that not every workplace disagreement or insensitive comment amounts to unlawful discrimination. Tribunals will look for a clear link between the treatment and a protected characteristic. For agency workers, it also highlights that termination due to a relationship breakdown, if properly documented and non-discriminatory, can be a fair reason. Finally, the costs order shows that tribunals are willing to penalise claimants who pursue weak claims unreasonably, even those representing themselves.
Similar cases
Dismissed for unauthorised absence: race discrimination claims rejected
A former employee of John Lewis plc who was dismissed for unauthorised absence and failure to follow reporting procedures has lost her unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims. The tribunal also ordered her to pay £13,250 in costs.
Fleet operative dismissed for phone use wins race discrimination claim
A fleet operative who was dismissed for using his mobile phone while driving has won his race discrimination and unfair dismissal claims. The tribunal found the dismissal was tainted by race and reduced compensation by 50% for contributory fault.
Social worker's race discrimination claim over 'aggressive' stereotype dismissed
A black social worker with 15 years' service lost her claims of race discrimination and constructive dismissal after an altercation with a white colleague. The tribunal found no evidence of stereotyping or unfair treatment.
Labourer's race discrimination claim survives strike-out bid despite late witness statement
A construction labourer who alleges he was subjected to monkey chants and racist abuse can proceed with his claim after the tribunal refused to strike it out, despite his late compliance with orders.