Probation dismissal: race discrimination claims fail on time limits and merits
A Solution Architect who alleged race discrimination and harassment during his probation was dismissed from his job. The tribunal found nearly all claims were brought too late, and the rest failed on the facts.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Grade A2 Solution Architect from 13 February 2020 to 17 March 2021.
- His employment was terminated during probation on grounds of failure to pass probation.
- The claimant alleged direct race discrimination and race-related harassment based on seven allegations.
- The tribunal found that all claims except those based on alleged racial comments and dismissal were presented out of time.
- The tribunal dismissed all claims on the merits, finding no less favourable treatment or harassment.
Timeline
-
Letter of appointment
Claimant's appointment letter specified a 9-month probationary period with informal appraisal at 6 months and formal appraisal at 9 months.
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a Grade A2 Solution Architect on a fixed-term contract of two years.
-
Assigned to BizTalk project
Claimant was assigned to the BizTalk upgrade project run by Ms Sharon Dempsey.
-
Work from home due to Covid-19
From around this date, all Parliamentary Digital Staff worked from home due to the pandemic.
-
Six-month appraisal due but not held
The informal appraisal due in mid-August 2020 did not take place; manager cited pressure of work.
-
Dismissal
Claimant's employment was terminated with pay in lieu of notice on grounds of failure to pass probation.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented his claim form to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Case management hearing
Agreed list of issues was settled at a hearing before Employment Judge J.S. Burns.
-
Final hearing commenced
Final hearing by CVP over three days, with oral judgment given on 9 November 2022.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was subjected to direct race discrimination and race-related harassment by his employer, and whether any claims were presented out of time.
The outcome
The tribunal unanimously dismissed all claims of direct race discrimination and race-related harassment.
- The tribunal found that all but two allegations were presented outside the three-month time limit and were therefore out of the tribunal's jurisdiction.
- The two remaining allegations—about alleged racial comments and the dismissal itself—were considered on their merits but were rejected. The tribunal found no evidence of less favourable treatment or harassment related to race.
- No compensation was awarded as the respondent successfully defended the claims.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employment tribunal claims must be brought within three months of the act complained of—delaying can mean losing the right to bring a claim.
- Probationary dismissals are not automatically unfair or discriminatory; employers can dismiss if performance is unsatisfactory, provided they do not act on protected characteristics.
- Allegations of discrimination need solid evidence—vague or uncorroborated claims are unlikely to succeed, especially if the employer can show a legitimate business reason.
- Representing yourself is possible but challenging; professional legal advice can help navigate strict time limits and complex legal tests.
A case of timing and evidence
This case highlights two critical hurdles in discrimination claims: strict time limits and the need for strong evidence. The claimant, a Solution Architect of Indian descent, was dismissed during his probation after just 13 months' service. He alleged that his manager made racial comments and treated him less favourably than a white colleague. However, the tribunal found that most of the alleged incidents happened months before he filed his claim—and were therefore out of time.
What the employer did right
The Parliamentary Digital Service had clear probation procedures, though they were not perfectly followed. The claimant's six-month appraisal was missed, but the tribunal accepted that this was due to workload, not race. Crucially, the employer provided evidence that the claimant's performance was genuinely unsatisfactory, and that the decision to dismiss was based on capability, not race. The tribunal also noted that the claimant's comparator was not in materially similar circumstances, as the two probationers had different roles and managers.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees, this case is a reminder that discrimination claims must be brought promptly—within three months of the alleged act. Even if the claim is strong on the facts, missing the deadline can be fatal. For employers, it shows that a well-documented performance management process can defend against discrimination allegations, even where there are minor procedural lapses. The case also underscores the importance of keeping clear records and treating all employees consistently, regardless of background.
Similar cases
Sales manager's race and sex discrimination claims fail after tribunal finds incidents did not occur
A sales and lettings manager with four months' service lost her race and sex discrimination claims after the tribunal found the alleged incidents of harassment and discrimination did not happen as described. No compensation was awarded.
Polish gay pastry chef loses discrimination claims over lack of evidence
A pastry chef who alleged years of anti-Polish and homophobic comments by colleagues failed to prove discrimination, as the tribunal found no contemporaneous evidence and noted the employer's diverse workforce.
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.