Probationary employee's race discrimination claims dismissed after tribunal finds evidence unreliable
A Black probationary employee who alleged race discrimination and harassment during her probation at Ted Baker (No Ordinary Designer Label Ltd) has had all her claims dismissed by the Central London Employment Tribunal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant is a Black woman of Caribbean background employed as a Virtual Merchandising Administrator from 28 May 2019.
- The claimant's probation was not confirmed due to performance concerns raised by her manager, Mr Welbourn.
- The claimant submitted a 22-page grievance on 15 August 2019 alleging discrimination and unfair treatment.
- The grievance was investigated by Mrs Harrison-Empson and appealed to Mr Shepherd, both of whom did not uphold the discrimination complaints.
- The claimant was dismissed on 29 November 2019 for failing probation.
- The tribunal found the claimant's evidence unreliable, including lying about covert recordings and disavowing parts of her Schedule of Loss.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started as VM Administrator at No Ordinary Designer Label Ltd (Ted Baker).
-
First probation review meeting
Mr Welbourn held a Settling In review after two weeks, highlighting concerns with notetaking, accuracy, and efficiency.
-
Informal catch-up meeting
Mr Welbourn discussed progress in the coffee shop; claimant alleges aggressive tone, but tribunal found it professional.
-
Four-week probation review
Further concerns raised; claimant scored two reds and five ambers on behaviours.
-
Alleged 'big black guy' comment
Mr Welbourn described a colleague as a 'big black guy'; tribunal found it was a factual description.
-
Eight-week probation review
Claimant covertly recorded the meeting; Mr Welbourn warned she might fail probation.
-
Claimant submitted grievance
22-page grievance alleging discrimination, misuse of process, and unfair treatment.
-
Grievance outcome
Mrs Harrison-Empson did not uphold discrimination complaints but noted procedural improvements.
-
Grievance appeal meeting
Mr Shepherd heard the appeal; claimant again covertly recorded.
-
Dismissal
Mr Welbourn terminated employment for failing probation; claimant given one week's notice in lieu.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the Virtual Merchandising Administrator was subjected to direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, or victimisation during her probation, grievance handling, and dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the claimant's evidence was unreliable, including lying about covert recordings and disavowing parts of her Schedule of Loss. The respondent's actions, including performance concerns and dismissal for failing probation, were not motivated by race. The grievance and appeal were properly handled. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Probationary employees can be dismissed for performance issues without a lengthy process, but employers must still act fairly and without discrimination.
- Covert recordings can damage credibility if the employee later denies making them or misrepresents the context.
- A detailed grievance does not automatically prove discrimination; the tribunal will examine the evidence behind each allegation.
- Representing yourself can be challenging; inconsistent statements or disavowing your own documents can undermine your case.
This case shows how a probationary employee's race discrimination claims can fail when the tribunal finds the claimant's evidence unreliable. The Virtual Merchandising Administrator, a Black woman of Caribbean background, was dismissed after failing her probation at Ted Baker (No Ordinary Designer Label Ltd). She alleged that her manager made a discriminatory comment about a 'big black guy' and that her grievance was mishandled.
What the tribunal found
The tribunal carefully examined the evidence and found that the manager's description of a colleague as a 'big black guy' was a factual description, not a racial slur. The performance concerns raised during probation were genuine and well-documented. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had covertly recorded meetings and later lied about it, and disavowed parts of her own Schedule of Loss. This significantly damaged her credibility.
What the respondent did right
The respondent had clear probation review processes, documented concerns, and investigated the grievance thoroughly. The grievance outcome was not upheld, but the tribunal found no evidence that race played any part in the decisions. The dismissal for failing probation was within the range of reasonable responses.
Key takeaway for similar claims
This case highlights the importance of credible evidence. Claimants who exaggerate or misrepresent facts risk having their entire case rejected. Employers should ensure they follow fair procedures and document performance issues, especially during probation. The outcome also shows that tribunals will scrutinise whether alleged discriminatory comments are truly offensive in context.
Similar cases
Probation dismissal: race discrimination and whistleblowing claims rejected
A security valet officer with nine months' service lost his claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and whistleblowing detriment after a tribunal found the employer's conduct concerns were genuine.
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.
Labourer's race discrimination claim survives strike-out bid despite late witness statement
A construction labourer who alleges he was subjected to monkey chants and racist abuse can proceed with his claim after the tribunal refused to strike it out, despite his late compliance with orders.
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.