Lecturer dismissed for performance issues: race and parental leave claims rejected
A tribunal dismissed claims of race discrimination and automatically unfair dismissal by a lecturer with 10 months' service, finding the real reason was poor performance.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 16 September 2019 until dismissal on 3 July 2020 as a lecturer and programme coordinator.
- The claimant was dismissed for performance issues, including unauthorised absences and failure to complete a survey.
- The claimant alleged his dismissal was due to race discrimination and automatically unfair reasons related to parental leave.
- The tribunal found the claimant's comparators were not comparable and that the PCP for indirect discrimination did not disadvantage black employees disproportionately.
- The tribunal concluded the principal reason for dismissal was performance, not race or parental leave.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a lecturer at the London School of Science and Technology.
-
Promotion to programme coordinator
Claimant was appointed as programme coordinator and team leader.
-
Unauthorised absence
Claimant was late and did not report correctly, cited as a performance issue.
-
Lateness issues
Claimant was repeatedly late between January and March 2020.
-
Absence due to lockdown
Claimant was absent due to school closures from national lockdown.
-
Email from Jade Ladha
Jade Ladha sent an email to Mr Haider raising performance concerns about the claimant.
-
Claimant's email
Claimant sent an email that he later claimed was a protected act, but tribunal found it did not allege discrimination.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for performance issues, including unauthorised absences and failure to follow instructions.
-
ET1 claim filed
Claimant filed his employment tribunal claim.
-
Hearing commenced
Substantive hearing began, delayed by one day due to Queen's funeral.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was automatically unfair because it related to parental leave, whether it amounted to direct or indirect race discrimination, and whether the claimant suffered a detriment for taking dependent's leave.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the claimant's dismissal was for performance issues, including unauthorised absences and failure to complete a survey. The email the claimant relied on as a protected act did not allege discrimination, so the victimisation claim was struck out. The claims of direct and indirect race discrimination failed because the comparators were not in materially similar circumstances and the PCP did not put black employees at a disadvantage. The claim of automatically unfair dismissal due to parental leave failed because the principal reason for dismissal was performance.
No compensation was awarded as all claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Short service (under 2 years) limits the scope for unfair dismissal claims, but discrimination claims can still be brought regardless of service length.
- To succeed in a discrimination claim, you must identify a proper comparator in materially similar circumstances.
- An email or complaint must clearly allege a breach of equality law to count as a protected act for victimisation claims.
Performance issues, not discrimination
This case shows that when an employer dismisses for genuine performance concerns, claims of discrimination or automatically unfair reasons are unlikely to succeed unless there is strong evidence linking the dismissal to a protected characteristic or statutory right. The claimant, a lecturer and programme coordinator with only 10 months' service, was dismissed after a series of performance issues: unauthorised absences, lateness, and failure to complete a required survey. He alleged that the real reason was his race (black) and that he had taken parental leave, but the tribunal found no evidence to support this.
What could have been done differently
The claimant argued that a white colleague who also had performance issues was treated more favourably, but the tribunal noted that colleague was not in a comparable role. For indirect discrimination, the claimant pointed to a requirement to attend meetings at a specific time, but the tribunal found no evidence that this disadvantaged black employees. The claimant also claimed that an email he sent was a protected act, but the email did not allege any breach of equality law, so the victimisation claim was struck out.
Why this matters
For employees, this case highlights the importance of gathering clear evidence if you believe discrimination is at play. Simply having a protected characteristic or taking parental leave does not automatically make a dismissal unfair or discriminatory. The tribunal will look at the employer's genuine reason for the decision. For employers, it confirms that dismissing for documented performance issues is defensible, provided the process is fair and not tainted by discrimination.
Similar cases
Senior lecturer dismissed for romantic relationship with student: dismissal fair
A senior lecturer with 14 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after developing a romantic relationship with a student. The tribunal rejected his claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination.
17-year employee loses unfair dismissal claim over redundancy scoring
A workshop planning co-ordinator with 17 years' service failed to prove his redundancy selection was unfair or discriminatory. The tribunal found Jaguar Land Rover's process was reasonable.
Claims struck out after former employee failed to comply with tribunal orders and stopped engaging
A tribunal struck out claims for automatic unfair dismissal and race discrimination after the claimant failed to comply with orders and made no contact for over a year.
Two employees win unfair dismissal and discrimination claims against Ibco Limited
A tribunal upheld claims of unfair dismissal, indirect race discrimination, and victimisation for one former employee, and unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments for another. Damages of £31,752 were awarded to the first claimant.