Doctor's receptionist loses race discrimination claim over holiday contract dispute
A doctor's receptionist who claimed she was discriminated against because of her race after a dispute over her holiday entitlement has had her claims dismissed by an employment tribunal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #race-discrimination
- #victimisation
- #disability-discrimination
- #reasonable-adjustments
- #contract-of-employment
- #holiday-entitlement
- #grievance-procedure
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a doctor's receptionist from November 2017, initially by Interserve FS (UK) Ltd, then transferred to ISS UK Ltd in April 2019.
- The claimant signed a contract on 5 October 2017 entitling her to 28 days holiday per year including bank holidays.
- The claimant raised a grievance on 12 March 2019 about her contract and holiday entitlement, but did not allege discrimination.
- The claimant was found to be disabled due to osteoarthritis of both hips from 13 May to 29 July 2019.
- The claimant's claims of direct race discrimination, victimisation, and failure to make reasonable adjustments were dismissed.
- The tribunal declared that the claimant's written statement of employment particulars was the contract dated 5 October 2017.
Timeline
-
Contract signed
The claimant signed a contract of employment with Interserve FS (UK) Ltd, entitling her to 28 days holiday per year including bank holidays.
-
Employment started
The claimant started work as a doctor's receptionist.
-
Incorrect contract sent
Interserve head office sent the claimant a blank template contract (Agenda for Change) with 27 days holiday plus bank holidays, which did not apply to her.
-
Phone call and visit
Ms Simpson and Ms Ashman had a heated phone call with the claimant about her holiday entitlement. Ms Ashman later visited the claimant at work to deliver documents.
-
Grievance raised
The claimant sent a grievance to Interserve head office about her contract and the incident on 25 February, but did not allege discrimination.
-
TUPE transfer
The claimant's employment transferred from Interserve to ISS UK Ltd.
-
Grievance hearing
A grievance hearing was held with Mr Amaadzie. The claimant was told her contract was the October 2017 one.
-
Sick leave started
The claimant commenced sick leave due to back pain/sciatica.
-
Absence review meeting
The claimant attended an absence review meeting at Queen Mary's Hospital. Ms Ashman was present as note-taker, which the claimant objected to.
-
Grievance appeal meeting
The claimant attended a grievance appeal meeting with Mr Clarke, but it was postponed because the claimant's uncle could not represent her.
-
Rescheduled appeal not attended
The claimant did not attend the rescheduled appeal hearing because she did not receive the letter.
-
Appeal heard in absence
The grievance appeal was heard in the claimant's absence; the outcome upheld the original decision.
-
Second grievance meeting rescheduled
Mr Hudson rescheduled a grievance meeting because the claimant was in hospital for hip surgery.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was subjected to direct race discrimination, victimisation, and failure to make reasonable adjustments, and to determine the correct terms of her employment contract.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims against ISS Mediclean Ltd. The claimant had alleged race discrimination, victimisation, and failure to make reasonable adjustments after a dispute about her holiday entitlement. The tribunal found that the respondent's actions were not motivated by the claimant's race or disability. No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you raise a grievance, make sure to clearly state any discrimination allegations at the earliest opportunity to avoid claims being time-barred.
- Keep copies of all contracts and correspondence about your terms and conditions to avoid disputes about what was agreed.
- Employers should ensure that any changes to employment terms are clearly communicated and agreed in writing to prevent misunderstandings.
- A disability must be shown to have a substantial and long-term adverse effect on daily activities to qualify for protection under the Equality Act 2010.
What this case shows in practice
A doctor's receptionist who worked at a GP practice brought claims of race discrimination and victimisation after a dispute over her holiday entitlement. The claimant argued that her employer had sent her an incorrect contract and that her grievance about this was mishandled. However, the tribunal found that the employer's actions were not related to her race or any protected characteristic.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant represented herself at the tribunal, which can be challenging. The tribunal noted that her grievance did not initially allege discrimination, and her claims were brought outside the usual time limits. Seeking early legal advice might have helped her understand the need to act promptly and to clearly link her complaints to a protected characteristic.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case highlights that not every workplace dispute amounts to discrimination. Employers are entitled to manage contractual issues and grievances without being automatically liable for discrimination, provided they act reasonably and without reference to a protected characteristic. For employees, it underscores the importance of raising discrimination concerns in a timely manner and ensuring that any disability meets the legal definition to trigger reasonable adjustment duties.
Similar cases
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.
Wrongful dismissal claim succeeds as Tesco admits conduct was not gross misconduct
A Tesco night-shift customer assistant who was dismissed for gross misconduct has won his wrongful dismissal claim after the tribunal found he was entitled to notice pay. He was awarded £400.
Security officer dismissed after back injury: tribunal finds unfair dismissal and disability discrimination
A security officer with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a back injury. The tribunal also found that CIS Security Ltd failed to make reasonable adjustments and discriminated against him arising from his disability.