Senior Asset Officer loses constructive dismissal and race discrimination claims
A Senior Asset Officer who resigned after being placed at risk of redundancy has lost his claims of constructive dismissal, direct race discrimination and victimisation. The tribunal found the claims were either out of time or not well-founded.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #race-discrimination
- #victimisation
- #constructive-dismissal
- #redundancy
- #training-denied
- #promotion-denied
- #time-bar
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Senior Asset Officer from 18 January 2016 to 16 October 2020.
- The claimant resigned on 24 September 2020, giving notice, and his employment ended on 16 October 2020.
- The claimant had accepted a new job with a higher salary before resigning.
- No employee of the respondent was made redundant during the restructuring process.
- The claimant's email of 5 April 2019 to Darren Lauritzen concerned workload, not race discrimination.
- The claimant's email of 10 July 2020 to Brian Egan was private and not known to management.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment with the respondent as a Senior Asset Officer.
-
Training request
Claimant emailed requesting funding for a Chartered Construction Manager course, which was not approved.
-
Email to Darren Lauritzen
Claimant emailed about workload due to colleague's absence; no mention of discrimination.
-
Email to Brian Egan
Claimant emailed union rep about workload and legal options; not shared with management.
-
At risk letter
Claimant received letter stating his role was at risk of redundancy.
-
New job offer
Claimant accepted a job offer from Golding Homes with higher salary.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned by email, citing lack of response to redundancy requests.
-
Redundancy payment denied
Respondent informed claimant he would not receive a redundancy payment as he resigned.
-
Employment ended
Claimant's last day of employment.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was constructively dismissed, subjected to direct race discrimination, or victimised, and whether any claims were brought in time.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's complaints.
- The claims relating to a denial of training in August 2017 were brought more than three months after the act complained of, and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them.
- The remaining allegations of constructive dismissal, direct race discrimination, and victimisation were found not to be well-founded on the evidence presented.
- No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employment tribunal claims must be brought within three months of the act complained of, or within such further period as the tribunal considers just and equitable.
- Resigning and claiming constructive dismissal requires the employer to have committed a fundamental breach of contract; a redundancy process that is handled reasonably is unlikely to amount to such a breach.
- Internal emails about workload or legal options that are not shared with management are unlikely to amount to protected acts for victimisation claims.
- A claimant who has already accepted a new job before resigning may struggle to show that the employer's conduct caused the resignation.
A case of timing and evidence
This case illustrates the importance of bringing claims promptly and the difficulty of proving constructive dismissal when the employer has acted reasonably. The claimant, a Senior Asset Officer with nearly five years' service, resigned after being told his role was at risk of redundancy. He had already accepted a higher-paid job elsewhere. The tribunal found that the redundancy process was genuine and that the employer had not committed a fundamental breach of contract.
What the tribunal considered
The claimant argued that he was forced to resign because the employer failed to respond to his requests for information about the redundancy process. However, the tribunal noted that the employer had placed him at risk, offered a pool of one, and that no employee was actually made redundant. The claimant's resignation email did not refer to any specific breach, and the tribunal concluded that the employer's conduct was not such as to entitle him to treat the contract as repudiated.
Discrimination and victimisation claims
The race discrimination and victimisation claims also failed. The tribunal found that the claimant's email about workload in April 2019 did not mention race and was not a protected act. A later email to a union representative was private and not known to management, so it could not have motivated any detrimental treatment. The refusal of training in 2017 was too old to be considered, and there was no evidence that the redundancy selection was tainted by race.
Why this matters
For employees considering a constructive dismissal claim, this case is a reminder that resigning in the heat of the moment, especially after securing another job, can undermine the argument that the employer's conduct left no choice. For employers, it shows that a fair redundancy process — even one that places an employee at risk — will generally be upheld, provided there is no discriminatory motive or fundamental breach.
Similar cases
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.
Deputy Design Director loses redundancy and discrimination claims against Greenland UK
A deputy design director who brought claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and unlawful deduction from wages after being made redundant has lost all her claims at the London Central Employment Tribunal.
Redundancy dismissal and victimisation claims fail: law enforcement officer loses tribunal case
A law enforcement officer with four years' service was fairly dismissed by redundancy and his claims of race and age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation were dismissed by the tribunal.
Senior engineer made redundant after pandemic downturn: unfair dismissal due to opaque selection process
An employment tribunal found that Bechtel Ltd unfairly dismissed a senior electrical engineer during a redundancy process, ruling that the selection lacked transparency. The claimant's race, caste, and whistleblowing claims were dismissed.