Constructive dismissal and race claims fail: a dental practice employee's case dismissed
A dental practice employee's claims of constructive unfair dismissal, race discrimination, and harassment were dismissed by the tribunal after a full hearing. No compensation was awarded.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the respondent dental practice.
- The claimant brought claims of race discrimination, harassment, constructive unfair dismissal, and wrongful dismissal.
- A deposit order of £100 was made for the harassment claim, which the claimant failed to pay, leading to strike-out.
- The claimant withdrew claims of victimisation and unlawful deductions from wages.
- The tribunal dismissed all remaining claims after a full hearing.
- The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was initially dismissed under Rule 38 but reinstated due to a tribunal error.
Timeline
-
Unless order issued
An 'unless' order was made, mistakenly referring to the unfair dismissal claim instead of the victimisation claim.
-
Unfair dismissal claim dismissed
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim under Rule 38 due to the error in the unless order.
-
Preliminary hearing
A preliminary hearing was held; a deposit order of £100 was made for the harassment claim. The claimant's application for relief from sanctions was granted, reinstating the unfair dismissal claim.
-
Deposit order sent
The deposit order was sent to the claimant.
-
Harassment claim struck out
The harassment claim was struck out due to non-payment of the deposit.
-
Final hearing begins
The final hearing commenced in Southampton.
-
Judgment given
All remaining claims were dismissed.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employee was constructively dismissed, directly discriminated against, or harassed because of her race, and whether she was wrongfully dismissed.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all of the employee's claims after a final hearing.
- The constructive unfair dismissal claim failed because the employee did not prove a fundamental breach of contract by the employer.
- The race discrimination and harassment claims were not well-founded, with the harassment claim previously struck out due to non-payment of a deposit order.
- No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach of contract by the employer; resigning in response to minor issues is unlikely to succeed.
- Deposit orders must be paid on time; failure to do so can result in automatic strike-out of that claim.
- Race discrimination claims need clear evidence linking treatment to race; general dissatisfaction is not enough.
- Tribunal errors can be corrected, but claimants should carefully comply with all orders to avoid procedural pitfalls.
This case shows how difficult it can be to succeed with a constructive dismissal claim, especially when the employee resigns over a series of grievances that the tribunal does not consider to be a fundamental breach of contract. The dental practice employee brought multiple claims, including race discrimination and harassment, but the tribunal found no evidence that her treatment was linked to her race.
The employee also faced procedural hurdles: a deposit order of £100 was made for her harassment claim, which she failed to pay, leading to that claim being struck out. This highlights the importance of complying with tribunal orders, even when the amounts seem small.
What the employer did right
The dental practice was able to show that its actions were reasonable and not discriminatory. The tribunal accepted that the employee's resignation was not in response to a fundamental breach, meaning the constructive dismissal claim failed. The employer also successfully defended the race discrimination claims by providing evidence that the employee's treatment was not related to her race.
Key takeaways for similar claims
For employees considering a constructive dismissal claim, it is essential to identify a clear, serious breach of contract by the employer before resigning. For race discrimination claims, strong evidence linking the treatment to race is crucial. Procedural compliance, such as paying deposit orders on time, is also vital to keep claims alive.
Similar cases
Lorry driver with 18 days' service: unfair dismissal struck out but discrimination claims survive
A lorry driver who resigned after 18 days and later worked as an agency driver was unable to claim unfair dismissal due to short service, but his disability and race discrimination claims will proceed to a final hearing.
Sonographer forced to clean and threatened with deportation: race discrimination upheld
A black African sonographer was racially harassed and discriminated against after being required to perform cleaning duties and threatened with deportation. The tribunal awarded £33,611.12.
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.
Black psychiatric nurse passed over for dual diagnosis lead role: race and sex discrimination upheld
A Black African community psychiatric nurse with 15 years' service was found to have been discriminated against when two white female colleagues were appointed to a specialist lead role he was qualified for. The tribunal upheld his claims of direct race and sex discrimination and harassment.