Racist slur allegation rejected: tribunal finds employee's evidence vague and evasive
A mobile electrical craftsperson with seven months' service lost his race discrimination claim after the tribunal found his evidence lacked credibility and he failed to raise the most serious allegations at the time.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Mobile Electrical Craftsperson from 29 November 2019 until his resignation on 10 July 2020.
- The claimant alleged that his supervisor, Tommy Harvey, made racist remarks and called him a 'fucking nigger' on 6 February 2020.
- The tribunal found that the claimant did not raise the most serious allegations at the time they were alleged to have occurred.
- The claimant's probation review on 27 April 2020 noted concerns about his speed of work and communication.
- The claimant resigned on 10 July 2020 but did not plead dismissal as an act of discrimination.
- The tribunal found the claimant's evidence vague, evasive, and lacking credibility.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant commenced employment as a Mobile Electrical Craftsperson.
-
WGC wall sockets job
Claimant attended a site in Welwyn Garden City to install wall sockets; later alleged Mr Harvey spread false rumours about his slowness.
-
Alleged racist remark
Claimant alleges Mr Harvey called him a 'fucking nigger' during a telephone call; Mr Harvey denied this.
-
Leon Neal incident
Claimant had an argument with Leon Neal at a site in Rainham; Mr Neal told him to 'fuck off'.
-
Empty thermometer box
Claimant collected an empty thermometer box from Barking depot; alleged he was set up by Mr Harvey.
-
ESA quote issue
Claimant provided information to a client at the European Space Agency, breaching the quoting procedure.
-
Probation review
First probation review conducted by telephone; claimant scored himself 5/5 but received lower scores from managers.
-
Meeting with HR
Claimant met with Ms Quraishi and Ms Thomas; he stated nothing racist had been said.
-
Further grievance email
Claimant sent an email raising complaints about racial discrimination and bullying.
-
Grievance outcome meeting
Meeting with Mr Galer and Ms Thomas; claimant alleged he was threatened with dismissal.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned from his employment.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employee was subjected to direct race and age discrimination, harassment related to race and age, victimisation, and unauthorised deductions from wages by his employer.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims brought by the mobile electrical craftsperson against Bouygues E & S Solutions Ltd.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant's evidence was found to be vague, evasive, and lacking in credibility.
- He did not raise the most serious allegations, including the alleged racist remark, at the time they were said to have occurred.
- The probation review concerns about speed and communication were performance-related, not discriminatory.
No compensation was awarded as all claims were unfounded.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you experience discrimination, raise it promptly with your employer – delays can damage your credibility.
- Tribunals assess witness credibility carefully; vague or inconsistent evidence can sink your case.
- Short-service employees (under two years) cannot claim unfair dismissal, but discrimination claims have no service requirement.
- Keep a detailed contemporaneous record of incidents, including dates, times, and what was said.
- Be prepared to provide clear and consistent evidence if you bring a claim – tribunals expect specifics.
A claim that unravelled on credibility
This case shows how crucial it is for claimants to provide clear, consistent evidence. The mobile electrical craftsperson alleged that his supervisor called him a racist slur and that he faced a campaign of bullying and discrimination. But the tribunal found his account 'vague and evasive' and noted that he did not report the most serious allegations at the time they were said to have happened.
What the employer did right
Bouygues E & S Solutions Ltd had processes in place to deal with the employee's concerns. When he raised a grievance, the company investigated and held meetings. The tribunal accepted the employer's evidence that the claimant's performance concerns – about speed and communication – were genuine and not a cover for discrimination. The employer also had witnesses who gave consistent accounts.
Why this matters for similar claims
For anyone considering a discrimination claim, this case is a reminder that tribunals will scrutinise the timing and detail of your complaints. If you wait weeks or months to report a serious incident, or if your account shifts over time, your credibility may be undermined. The outcome also highlights that short-service employees can still bring discrimination claims – but they must be prepared to prove them with solid evidence.
Similar cases
Legal secretary awarded £29,000 after assault and protected disclosures
A trainee legal secretary who was assaulted by her employer and made protected disclosures has won claims of unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation. She was awarded £28,986.85.
Former employee wins discrimination and holiday pay claims against PMP Recruitment
A former employee of PMP Recruitment Limited succeeded in claims of direct discrimination and harassment on grounds of age, race, and sex, and was awarded over £19,000 in compensation.
Audit Assistant Manager loses constructive dismissal and race discrimination claim against Grant Thornton
An Audit Assistant Manager with 2 years' service who resigned after being placed on a performance improvement plan has lost his claims of constructive unfair dismissal, race discrimination and whistleblowing detriment. The tribunal found the employer had reasonable cause for its actions.
Fixed-term contract expiry: discrimination claims fail at Middlesex University
A work placement officer with 7 months' service lost her claims of discrimination, harassment, and unfair dismissal after her fixed-term contract expired. The tribunal found no evidence of unlawful treatment.