Sonographer forced to clean and threatened with deportation: race discrimination upheld
A black African sonographer was racially harassed and discriminated against after being required to perform cleaning duties and threatened with deportation. The tribunal awarded £33,611.12.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #race-discrimination
- #harassment
- #constructive-dismissal
- #cleaning-duties
- #body-odour
- #sponsorship-threats
- #probation-extension
Key facts
- The claimant, a black African sonographer, was employed from 19 March 2021.
- She was required to perform general cleaning duties not part of a sonographer's role.
- Her probation was extended twice after she refused to clean.
- She was told she was 'here to work' because of her sponsorship.
- She resigned on 7 December 2021 due to unfavourable working conditions.
- The tribunal found the respondents racially harassed and directly discriminated against her.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a sonographer at Woodhaze Ltd.
-
Meeting about working hours
Claimant complained about excessive working days; told she was 'here to work'.
-
Dispute over cleaning and clinical judgment
Claimant disagreed with unqualified staff about a foetal heartbeat; cleaning duties disputed.
-
First probation extension
Probation extended to 19 December 2021, citing 2D imaging and attitude; tribunal found cleaning refusal was real reason.
-
Probation review meeting
Claimant accused of insubordination for refusing cleaning; body odour raised for first time.
-
Second probation extension
Probation extended to 19 March 2022; cleaning and body odour cited.
-
Claimant resigned
Claimant gave one month's notice citing unfavourable working conditions.
-
Demand for repayment
Respondent demanded £5,975.25 within 24 hours for recruitment costs.
-
Summary dismissal
Respondent dismissed claimant by email after she reported sick via text.
-
Wages deducted
Respondent deducted entire December salary and holiday pay.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was subjected to harassment and direct race discrimination by being required to perform cleaning duties, threatened with deportation, and having her probation extended unfairly, and whether she was constructively dismissed.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was subjected to race discrimination and harassment. The key reasons included being required to perform cleaning duties inconsistent with her professional role, being threatened with deportation if she did not comply, and having her probation extended unfairly.
Compensation:
- £2,538.40 for unauthorised deduction from wages
- £2,157.64 for unpaid annual leave
- £28,915.08 for discrimination (including £20,000 injury to feelings, £2,000 aggravated damages, interest, and agreed financial loss)
Lessons & takeaways
- Requiring a professional employee to perform menial tasks unrelated to their role can amount to race discrimination if it is linked to their race.
- Threatening an employee with deportation or sponsorship consequences for refusing to comply with unreasonable demands is likely to be harassment.
- Extending probation for reasons that are not genuine performance issues but retaliation for asserting rights can be direct discrimination.
- Employers should ensure that performance concerns are based on objective evidence and not used as a pretext for discriminatory treatment.
- Constructive dismissal claims can succeed when an employer's conduct fundamentally breaches the implied term of trust and confidence.
This case highlights how seemingly minor workplace demands can cross the line into race discrimination. The claimant, a black African sonographer with nine months' service, was repeatedly asked to vacuum and mop floors – tasks far removed from her professional role. When she refused, she was told she was 'here to work' because of her sponsorship, and her probation was extended twice. The tribunal found that these actions were not about performance but were racially motivated.
What the employer did wrong
The employer could have avoided this outcome by treating the claimant as a professional. Instead, they singled her out for cleaning duties, raised unfounded concerns about body odour, and used her immigration status as a threat. The tribunal noted that the cleaning requirement was inconsistent with her status as a sonographer and that the probation extensions were a response to her refusal to clean, not genuine performance issues.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that discrimination can take many forms, including seemingly minor tasks or comments that create a hostile environment. For employees on sponsorship visas, threats about deportation are particularly serious. The substantial award – including £20,000 for injury to feelings and £2,000 aggravated damages – reflects the impact on the claimant's dignity and mental health. Employers should review their treatment of sponsored workers and ensure that performance management is fair and unrelated to protected characteristics.
Similar cases
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.
Black psychiatric nurse passed over for dual diagnosis lead role: race and sex discrimination upheld
A Black African community psychiatric nurse with 15 years' service was found to have been discriminated against when two white female colleagues were appointed to a specialist lead role he was qualified for. The tribunal upheld his claims of direct race and sex discrimination and harassment.
Registered mental health nurse loses race discrimination claims against Cygnet
A registered mental health nurse who alleged race discrimination and harassment by Cygnet NW Limited has had all his claims dismissed by the Sheffield Employment Tribunal.
Constructive dismissal after 15 years: race harassment and unpaid holiday pay
A former employee with 15 years' service was constructively dismissed after a campaign of race harassment. The tribunal awarded over £34,000 including £21,000 for injury to feelings.