Fleet operative dismissed for phone use wins race discrimination claim
A fleet operative who was dismissed for using his mobile phone while driving has won his race discrimination and unfair dismissal claims. The tribunal found the dismissal was tainted by race and reduced compensation by 50% for contributory fault.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Fleet Operative-Drayman from 8 July 2013 until dismissed on 11 March 2020.
- The claimant was the only non-white employee at the Preston depot.
- The claimant was dismissed for using a mobile phone while driving, which he admitted but said was for sat nav purposes.
- The tribunal found a long history of discriminatory treatment, including colleagues refusing to work with him and offensive social media posts.
- The tribunal found that the dismissal was an act of direct race discrimination and unfair dismissal.
- The tribunal applied a 10% Polkey deduction and a 50% contributory fault deduction to compensation.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant started work as a Fleet Operative/Drayman at Manchester depot, later transferred to Preston.
-
Petition at Manchester depot
Colleagues at Manchester signed a petition refusing to work with the claimant; management allowed this.
-
Driving assessment failed
Claimant failed a driving assessment and was stood down from driving until February 2018.
-
Yard accident
Claimant collided with a trailer in the yard; he was removed from driving and placed into disciplinary process.
-
Grievance lodged
Claimant lodged a grievance alleging race discrimination against manager Mr Meiring.
-
Disciplinary cancelled
The disciplinary hearing for the yard accident was cancelled the day before it was due.
-
Mobile phone footage shown
Claimant was shown a video of him holding a mobile phone while driving; he was suspended.
-
Disciplinary hearing
First disciplinary hearing for mobile phone use; claimant's union raised concerns about fairness.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct (using mobile phone while driving).
-
Appeal rejected
Appeal against dismissal was rejected; discrimination issues were not investigated.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for using a mobile phone while driving was an act of direct race discrimination and unfair dismissal, and whether other alleged acts of victimisation and harassment occurred.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination, as well as several claims of victimisation and harassment related to race.
Key reasons:
- The claimant was the only non-white employee at the depot and had suffered a long history of discriminatory treatment, including colleagues refusing to work with him and offensive social media posts.
- The dismissal for mobile phone use was a disproportionate response compared to how a white employee would have been treated.
- Compensation will be reduced by 10% (Polkey) and 50% for contributory fault.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: reduced by 50% for contributory fault
- Compensatory award: reduced by 10% (Polkey) and further reduced by 50% for contributory fault
- Total damages: to be determined at a remedy hearing
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are the only person of your ethnicity in a workplace and suffer a pattern of unfair treatment, a dismissal may be found to be racially discriminatory.
- Admitting to misconduct does not automatically defeat a discrimination claim if the treatment was harsher than that of colleagues in similar circumstances.
- Keep a record of all incidents of alleged discrimination, including dates, witnesses, and any grievances raised, as this history can be used to support a claim.
- A dismissal for a genuine safety breach can still be unfair if the employer fails to consider a proportionate response or treats the employee differently due to race.
A pattern of discrimination
The claimant, a fleet operative-drayman with seven years' service, was the only non-white employee at the Preston depot of GXO Logistics Drinks Limited. Over several years, he experienced a series of discriminatory incidents, including colleagues signing a petition refusing to work with him, offensive social media posts, and managers telling him to 'stop playing the race card'. When he was dismissed for using his mobile phone while driving, the tribunal found that this was not a standalone decision but the culmination of a racially hostile environment.
What the employer did wrong
The employer argued that the dismissal was solely for gross misconduct, as the claimant admitted holding his phone while driving. However, the tribunal noted that the claimant had explained he was using the phone for sat nav purposes, and that other employees had not been dismissed for similar infractions. Crucially, the dismissing officer did not properly consider the claimant's explanation or the context of his long service and clean disciplinary record. The tribunal also found that the employer failed to investigate the claimant's grievance about race discrimination, which had been lodged months before the dismissal.
Why this matters
This case shows that even where an employee admits to misconduct, a dismissal can still be unfair and discriminatory if the employer's response is disproportionate or influenced by race. The tribunal applied a 10% Polkey reduction (reflecting the chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed) and a 50% reduction for contributory fault (because the claimant's own actions contributed to the dismissal). However, the core finding of race discrimination means the claimant is entitled to compensation for injury to feelings as well as financial losses. The case is a reminder that employers must treat all employees consistently and investigate discrimination complaints thoroughly, especially when the employee is from a minority background.
Similar cases
Agency lawyer's race discrimination claims against council dismissed; costs ordered
An agency Contracts and Procurement Lawyer lost her race discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims against the London Borough of Waltham Forest. The tribunal also ordered her to pay costs for pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success.
Residential support worker dismissed for attending work with possible COVID-19 symptoms: dismissal fair
A residential support worker was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after attending work while possibly having COVID-19 symptoms. The tribunal rejected her claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination and victimisation.
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.
Former employee unfairly dismissed but gets only basic award after 70% contributory conduct deduction
A Watford tribunal found Mitie Ltd unfairly dismissed a former employee but reduced his basic award by 70% for his own conduct and made no compensatory award due to a 100% Polkey reduction. He received £1,298.10.