30-year youth worker loses race discrimination claim over capability dismissal
A Reading Borough Council youth worker with 30 years' service failed to prove her dismissal for poor performance was racially motivated. The tribunal found no less favourable treatment compared to a hypothetical comparator.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-term-capability-issues
- #performance-management
- #safeguarding-concerns
- #comparator-analysis
- #hypothetical-comparator
- #burden-of-proof
Key facts
- The claimant, a Black woman of Barbadian origin, was employed by the respondent as a YES youth worker from 1983 until her dismissal on 3 May 2013.
- Performance concerns were raised as early as 2007, and the claimant was taken through a formal capability procedure from January 2012.
- The decision to dismiss was made by Sarah Gee, the respondent's former Head of Housing, Neighbourhoods and Community Services, following a Stage 3 capability meeting.
- The claimant did not attend the reconvened Stage 3 meeting on 25 April 2013 or subsequent meetings offered to discuss her grievance and redeployment.
- The Tribunal found that the claimant's performance shortcomings were genuine, longstanding, and well-documented across multiple areas, and that a hypothetical comparator of a different race would also have been dismissed.
- The claimant's claim of direct race discrimination failed because she did not establish less favourable treatment compared to an appropriate comparator, and the Tribunal found that race played no part in the dismissal decision.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant began working for the respondent as a part-time youth and community worker.
-
First documented performance concerns
Supervision notes from manager Dave Aldred recorded concerns about timekeeping, lack of programme plans, and budget issues.
-
Tina Heaford became line manager
Ms Heaford took over as the claimant's line manager and soon expressed concerns about her performance.
-
Informal capability procedure started
Ms Heaford sent a letter to the claimant regarding the informal stage of the capability procedure, listing areas of unsatisfactory performance.
-
Formal capability procedure commenced
The claimant was informed that her case would be dealt with under Stage 1 of the formal capability procedure.
-
Final written warning issued
Following a Stage 2 capability meeting, the claimant was issued with a final written warning.
-
Stage 3 capability meeting (adjourned)
Sarah Gee chaired the Stage 3 meeting but adjourned it to obtain further evidence from occupational health and arrange session observations.
-
Claimant failed to attend reconvened Stage 3 meeting
The claimant did not attend the reconvened meeting, citing a hospital appointment and other commitments.
-
Claimant dismissed
Sarah Gee dismissed the claimant with 12 weeks' notice due to capability issues.
-
Appeal hearing
The claimant's appeal against dismissal was heard by Avril Wilson, who did not uphold the appeal.
-
Effective date of termination
The claimant's employment ended.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for capability reasons amounted to direct race discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, specifically whether she was treated less favourably because of her race compared to an actual or hypothetical comparator.
The outcome
The tribunal found that Reading Borough Council did not discriminate against the claimant on grounds of race when it dismissed her for capability issues.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant's performance concerns were genuine, longstanding, and well-documented across multiple areas.
- A hypothetical comparator of a different race would also have been dismissed in the same circumstances.
- The decision-maker, Sarah Gee, was found to have acted without any racial motivation.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed entirely.
Lessons & takeaways
- Long service does not automatically protect against dismissal if performance issues are genuine and well-documented.
- To prove direct discrimination, you need to show less favourable treatment compared to an actual or hypothetical comparator in similar circumstances.
- Employers should ensure performance management processes are fair and consistent, but a fair process does not guarantee a discrimination claim will succeed.
- If you bring a discrimination claim, you must provide evidence that race (or another protected characteristic) played a part in the decision.
A long career ends over performance concerns
This case shows that even employees with decades of service can be fairly dismissed for capability issues if the employer follows a proper process and the performance concerns are genuine. The claimant, a youth worker for Reading Borough Council since 1983, was dismissed in 2013 after a lengthy capability procedure that began informally in 2011. The tribunal heard that her performance had been a concern since 2007, with issues around timekeeping, programme planning, and budget management.
What the employer did right
Reading Borough Council had documented the performance concerns over several years and followed a staged capability procedure. The claimant was given opportunities to improve, received a final written warning, and was invited to a Stage 3 meeting before the decision to dismiss was made. The tribunal noted that the decision-maker, Sarah Gee, had considered alternatives such as redeployment, but the claimant did not attend the reconvened meeting or subsequent discussions.
Why the discrimination claim failed
The claimant argued that her dismissal was racially motivated, but the tribunal found no evidence to support this. The key test in direct discrimination claims is whether the claimant was treated less favourably than someone of a different race in similar circumstances. Here, the tribunal concluded that a hypothetical comparator — a non-Black employee with the same performance issues — would also have been dismissed. The tribunal emphasised that the performance shortcomings were 'genuine, longstanding, and well-documented', and that race played no part in the decision.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that bringing a discrimination claim requires more than a belief that race was a factor. Claimants need to point to specific evidence of less favourable treatment, such as comments or actions that suggest bias. Employers who can show a fair process and consistent treatment across all staff are well placed to defend such claims.
Similar cases
ADHD disability claim fails for lack of medical evidence
A former employee who claimed disability discrimination based on ADHD had her claim dismissed after the tribunal found she had not proven she had the condition on the balance of probabilities.
Delivery manager dismissed for 'intention to steal' wins race discrimination claim
A black Caribbean delivery manager was unfairly dismissed and racially stereotyped after a returned iPhone went missing. The tribunal found Royal Mail's investigation was flawed and the claimant was treated less favourably than a hypothetical white comparator.
Claim dismissed after withdrawal emails from husband's account: reconsideration refused
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed after emails purporting to withdraw it were sent from her husband's email account. The tribunal refused her application to reconsider, finding her hacking allegation improbable and unsupported by evidence.
Research assistant's redundancy claim fails: funding cessation was genuine reason
A research assistant with 12 years' service lost her claim for unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment and disability discrimination after the tribunal found her redundancy was genuinely due to loss of funding.