Sterile specialist dismissed after posting selfies in sterile area: discrimination claims struck out
A tribunal struck out a sterile specialist's race and age discrimination claims after she admitted posting selfies showing confidential information on social media. The claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #strike-out
- #gross-misconduct
- #social-media-policy
- #comparator-issue
- #short-service
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a sterile specialist from 19 April 2022 to 27 May 2022.
- She admitted taking photographs in a sterile area and posting selfies showing confidential information on social media.
- The respondent dismissed her for gross misconduct, citing breach of social media and phone policies.
- The claimant alleged direct race and age discrimination, comparing herself to another employee (Garfield Hamilton) who was not disciplined.
- The respondent's dismissing officer had no knowledge of the alleged comparator's conduct.
- The tribunal found no evidence of less favourable treatment or a causal link to protected characteristics.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a sterile specialist at Norton Healthcare Ltd.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct related to taking and posting photographs on social media.
-
Early conciliation started
Early conciliation with ACAS began.
-
Early conciliation ended
Early conciliation ended.
-
Claim presented
Claim form presented to the tribunal.
-
Case management hearing
Employment Judge Flanagan held a case management hearing; claimant was legally represented.
-
Strike out hearing
Employment Judge Grundy heard the respondent's application to strike out the claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's claims of direct race and age discrimination had any reasonable prospect of success, given that she admitted gross misconduct and could not point to a valid comparator.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claimant's discrimination claims on the grounds that they had no reasonable prospect of success. The unfair dismissal claim was also dismissed because she had less than two years' service.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant admitted taking photographs in a sterile area and posting them on social media, breaching company policies.
- The alleged comparator (Garfield Hamilton) was not known to the dismissing officer, so there was no evidence of less favourable treatment.
- No causal link was shown between the dismissal and the claimant's race or age.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' service cannot bring ordinary unfair dismissal claims, but discrimination claims have no service requirement.
- To succeed in a discrimination claim, you must show that the alleged comparator's circumstances were materially the same and known to the decision-maker.
- Admitted misconduct that breaches clear workplace policies makes it very difficult to argue that dismissal was discriminatory.
- A lay representative may struggle to establish complex comparator evidence without legal training.
What this case shows
This case illustrates the high bar for bringing discrimination claims when an employee has admitted serious misconduct. The claimant, a sterile specialist with only five or six weeks' service, was dismissed after posting selfies taken in a sterile area that showed confidential information. She accepted she had breached the company's social media and phone policies.
She alleged that her dismissal was due to her race (Filipino and South Asian heritage) and age (around 36), comparing herself to a colleague named Garfield Hamilton who she said also took and posted photos but was not disciplined. However, the dismissing officer had no knowledge of Hamilton's conduct at the time of the decision, and there was no evidence that the two situations were materially similar or that the claimant was treated less favourably.
What the employer did right
The employer had clear policies on phone use and social media, and the claimant admitted breaching them. The dismissing officer made the decision based on the claimant's own conduct, without reference to any comparator. This made the discrimination claim very weak.
Why the result matters
The tribunal struck out the claims at an early stage, saving time and costs. The case is a reminder that discrimination claims require more than a belief that you were treated unfairly — you need evidence of less favourable treatment linked to a protected characteristic. For short-service employees, the only potential claim is discrimination, so the evidence must be strong from the outset.
Similar cases
17-year Tesco shift leader's unfair dismissal claim struck out for failing to comply with tribunal directions
A shift leader with 17 years' service had his unfair dismissal claim struck out after he failed to provide a witness statement, disclosure, or a schedule of loss, and did not engage with the respondent or the tribunal.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out due to less than two years' service
A former employee of Gatwick Construction Limited had their unfair dismissal claim thrown out because they had not worked there for two years. Their other claims for wrongful dismissal and unauthorised deductions also failed.
Patient Administrator dismissed for theft after CCTV evidence: claim struck out as hopeless
A tribunal struck out an unfair dismissal claim from a Patient Administrator who was dismissed for allegedly stealing a colleague's bag, after finding CCTV footage left no reasonable prospect of success.
Dismissed for fraudulent ATM withdrawals: tribunal strikes out race bias claim
A Community Hub Director with 11 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct after allegedly faking a stolen card. The tribunal struck out his unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims as having no reasonable prospects of success.