Probation dismissal: race and disability discrimination claims rejected
A Procurement Support Manager dismissed during his probation period lost his claims of race discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal found no evidence that his Russian ethnic origin or undisclosed HIV status played any part in the decision.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #race-discrimination
- #disability-discrimination
- #reasonable-adjustments
- #probationary-period
- #russia-ukraine-conflict
- #behaviour-action-plan
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Procurement Support Manager from 17 January 2022.
- The claimant described himself as of Russian ethnic origin and half-Ukrainian.
- The claimant's managers raised concerns about his attitude, behaviour, and failure to produce a work plan.
- The claimant was dismissed during his probationary period on 1 April 2022.
- The claimant had HIV (conceded as a disability) but did not disclose it to the respondent.
- The tribunal found no evidence of race discrimination or failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Timeline
-
Job offer
The claimant was offered the role of Procurement Support Manager.
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started work with the respondent.
-
Meeting about workplan
The claimant met with Ms Briggs and Mr Betteridge to discuss his workplan.
-
CPR meeting
The claimant failed to present his workplan; a colleague read a statement referencing the Russia/Ukraine situation.
-
Russia invaded Ukraine
Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
-
Tool Box Talk meeting
The claimant behaved rudely and aggressively; colleagues complained.
-
Meeting about behaviour
Ms Briggs and Mr Betteridge discussed the claimant's behaviour; he was asked to produce a behaviour action plan.
-
Meeting with Mr Betteridge
The claimant ranted and refused to accept responsibility; Mr Betteridge recommended dismissal.
-
Probation review meeting
Mr Gupta chaired the meeting; the claimant's explanations were not accepted.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed for not meeting probation expectations.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed because of his Russian ethnic origin (direct race discrimination) and whether the employer failed to make reasonable adjustments for his HIV and depression disabilities.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims.
The key reason was that the claimant failed to prove facts from which discrimination could be inferred. The employer's concerns about his attitude, behaviour, and failure to produce a work plan were genuine and not related to his race or disability. The claimant had not disclosed his HIV status or requested adjustments, so the employer could not be expected to know about his disability.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were unsuccessful.
Lessons & takeaways
- Disclosing a disability to your employer is essential if you want to rely on the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
- Performance and behaviour concerns during a probation period can justify dismissal without the need for a full capability process.
- To succeed in a discrimination claim, you need to show evidence linking the treatment to a protected characteristic, not just a feeling or suspicion.
- Employers should document performance and behaviour issues clearly to defend against discrimination allegations.
This case illustrates the challenges of bringing discrimination claims when the employer's actions appear to be based on genuine performance and conduct issues. The claimant, a Procurement Support Manager, was dismissed just over two months into his probation. His managers had raised concerns about his attitude, behaviour, and failure to produce a required work plan. The tribunal accepted that these were the real reasons for dismissal, not his Russian ethnic origin or his HIV status.
What the employer did right
The respondent had a clear probation policy and followed it. They held meetings to discuss the claimant's performance, gave him opportunities to improve (including asking for a behaviour action plan), and ultimately made a decision based on the evidence. The tribunal noted that the decision-maker was not involved in the day-to-day issues, which helped demonstrate objectivity. The employer also showed that other employees in similar situations had been treated the same way.
Why the discrimination claims failed
The claimant argued that his Russian ethnic origin, combined with the Russia-Ukraine conflict, led to his dismissal. However, the tribunal found no evidence that any manager held negative views about his ethnicity. The claimant's own behaviour—including a rant at a colleague and refusal to accept responsibility—was the problem. On the disability claim, the tribunal noted that the claimant had not disclosed his HIV or depression to anyone at work. An employer cannot be expected to make adjustments for a disability it does not know about.
Key takeaway for similar cases
This case is a reminder that discrimination claims require more than a suspicion. The burden is on the claimant to show facts from which discrimination could be inferred. Where an employer has clear, documented reasons for dismissal that are unrelated to a protected characteristic, the claim is unlikely to succeed. For employees, disclosing a disability early and requesting specific adjustments is crucial if they want to rely on the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
Similar cases
Registered Nurse lost constructive dismissal claim over protected disclosure and discrimination
A tribunal dismissed all claims by a dementia ward nurse who resigned after suspension, finding no link between his protected disclosure and the employer's actions.
Healthcare assistant dismissed during probation: discrimination claims fail
A healthcare assistant who was dismissed during his probationary period for sickness absence and conduct issues has lost his claims of sex and disability discrimination against Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust. The tribunal found no unlawful discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, or victimisation.
Redundancy dismissal upheld as fair despite disability, race and sex discrimination claims
An Executive Development Consultant with multiple sclerosis lost her unfair dismissal and discrimination claims after the tribunal found the redundancy was genuine and fairly handled.
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.