Sham redundancy and race discrimination: Impact Project Coordinator wins £475k
An Impact Project Coordinator who was dismissed in a sham redundancy after being pressured to take voluntary severance has won her claims of unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination against Wolverhampton City Council. The tribunal awarded her £475,176.34.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #race-discrimination
- #unfair-dismissal
- #sham-redundancy
- #pressure-to-take-voluntary-redundancy
- #biased-investigation
- #appraisal-unfairness
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed on 6 March 2019, ostensibly for redundancy following a restructure.
- The tribunal found that the claimant's role of Project Coordinator was effectively the same as the new Project Compliance Coordinator role, just renamed.
- The respondent put the claimant under sustained pressure to accept voluntary redundancy, including during a meeting on 12 September 2018.
- The disciplinary investigation was one-sided and designed to secure the claimant's exit.
- The claimant succeeded in claims of direct race discrimination regarding her May 2018 appraisal, the deletion of her post, her dismissal, pressure to take voluntary redundancy, and refusal to investigate her grievance.
- The claimant's unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the respondent failed to prove redundancy was the real reason for dismissal.
Timeline
-
Claimant starts work
The claimant began her role as Impact Project Coordinator, reporting to Heather Clark initially.
-
First formal complaint against claimant
Ms Buckley submitted a dignity at work complaint on behalf of Ms Gibbons, alleging unpleasant behaviour and inappropriate comments.
-
Team meeting encouraging complaints
Ms McKeever held a team meeting where she actively encouraged staff to make complaints about the claimant, described by some as a 'witch hunt'.
-
Ms Prescott's grievance
Ms Prescott submitted a six-page grievance against the claimant, which the respondent treated as a formal complaint.
-
Claimant moved to isolated desk
The claimant was moved to a bank of empty desks on the first floor, away from her team, after the grievance was lodged.
-
Unduly negative appraisal
Ms McKeever gave the claimant a harsh appraisal, ignoring many positive aspects of her performance, which the tribunal found to be an act of race discrimination.
-
Meeting where claimant was angry
At a feedback session, the claimant was angry, rude, and refused to present, leading to her suspension.
-
Claimant suspended
The claimant was suspended pending investigation into gross misconduct allegations related to the 20 July meeting.
-
Meeting: post deleted and VR offered
Ms Pearce told the claimant her post was deleted and offered voluntary redundancy, pressuring her to accept.
-
Claimant raises grievance
The claimant lodged a formal grievance alleging bullying, harassment, and victimisation by Ms McKeever.
-
Dismissal meeting
The claimant was handed a letter confirming her dismissal on grounds of redundancy, effective 6 March 2019.
-
Employment terminated
The claimant's employment ended on this date.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal was genuinely for redundancy or a sham, and whether she had been subjected to direct race discrimination, harassment, or victimisation in various acts leading up to her dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination in relation to her appraisal, the deletion of her post, pressure to take voluntary redundancy, and the refusal to investigate her grievance. Other claims of harassment and victimisation were dismissed.
The key reasons were:
- The redundancy was not genuine; the claimant's role was effectively the same as the new role, just renamed.
- The claimant was put under sustained pressure to accept voluntary redundancy.
- The disciplinary investigation was one-sided and designed to secure her exit.
- The appraisal was unduly negative and an act of race discrimination.
Compensation:
- Total damages: £475,176.34
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are put under pressure to accept voluntary redundancy while a disciplinary process is ongoing, seek legal advice and document everything.
- A redundancy process that targets a specific employee and fails to consult properly is likely to be found a sham.
- Negative appraisals that ignore positive performance can be evidence of discrimination if they are linked to a protected characteristic.
- Refusing to investigate a grievance while pursuing disciplinary action may be seen as victimisation or discrimination.
- Tribunals will look at the totality of treatment, not just the dismissal, to determine if there was a pattern of discrimination.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights how a redundancy process can be used as a cover for discrimination and unfair dismissal. The claimant, a manager at Wolverhampton City Council, was dismissed ostensibly for redundancy following a restructure. However, the tribunal found that her role was not genuinely redundant; it was essentially the same job with a different title. The council had put her under sustained pressure to accept voluntary redundancy, and the disciplinary investigation against her was one-sided and designed to secure her exit.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been subjected to direct race discrimination in several ways, including an unduly negative appraisal and the refusal to investigate her grievance. The cumulative effect of these actions led to a finding of unfair dismissal and substantial compensation.
What the council could have done differently
The council could have avoided this outcome by conducting a genuine redundancy consultation, treating the claimant fairly in the appraisal process, and investigating her grievance properly. Instead, they allowed a manager who had a history of encouraging complaints against the claimant to drive the process. The tribunal noted that the redundancy was a sham, and the disciplinary process was used as a tool to force her out.
Why this result matters
This case serves as a warning to employers that sham redundancies and discriminatory treatment will not be tolerated. It also shows that employees who are subjected to a pattern of unfair treatment may have multiple claims, not just for unfair dismissal but also for discrimination. The substantial award of over £475,000 reflects the seriousness of the council's actions and the impact on the claimant.
Similar cases
Former employee's unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of two years' service
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Kings College London was struck out because they did not have the required two years' service. Their discrimination claims were dismissed after a hearing.
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.
Attendance Officer dismissed in restructure: redundancy process upheld despite grievances
A tribunal has ruled that an Attendance Officer with 10 years' service was fairly dismissed by Wokingham Borough Council and LDBS Frays Academy Trust following a redundancy selection process, rejecting claims of race discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Short-service engineer loses unfair dismissal claim but wins holiday pay
A static maintenance engineer with under two years' service could not bring an unfair dismissal claim, but the tribunal awarded £803.88 in unpaid holiday pay.