Dot Com driver's race and religion discrimination claims against Tesco dismissed
A Tesco Dot Com driver who alleged 17 incidents of discrimination on grounds of race and religion has had all claims dismissed by an employment tribunal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Dot Com driver at Tesco's Haslingden store.
- He was dismissed on 29 June 2020 for gross misconduct including misuse of a company vehicle, SDS device, and colleague discount.
- He was reinstated following an appeal and returned to work on 2 September 2020.
- The claimant alleged 17 incidents of less favourable treatment on grounds of race (British Asian) and religion (Muslim).
- The tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of race or religion in any of the allegations.
- The claims of direct race and religion discrimination were dismissed.
Timeline
-
Investigation begins
Miss Fitzjohn began investigating the claimant after a report of drivers not clocking off. Tracker data showed significant unscheduled stops at or near his home.
-
Investigation meeting
First formal investigation meeting with the claimant regarding misuse of vehicle, SDS device, and Clubcard.
-
Second investigation meeting
Reconvened investigation meeting.
-
Dismissal
Mrs Cook dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct.
-
First appeal hearing
First appeal hearing with Mrs Finnegan.
-
Second appeal hearing
Second appeal hearing; Mrs Finnegan overturned dismissal and issued final written warning.
-
Reinstatement
Claimant returned to work, initially in the pod (Click and Collect).
-
Wellness meeting request
Mr Hampson asked the claimant, who was on sick leave, to attend a face-to-face wellness meeting.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented his claim to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Final hearing judgment
Tribunal dismissed all claims of direct race and religion discrimination.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant, a British Asian Muslim, was subjected to less favourable treatment because of his race or religion in 17 separate incidents, including his dismissal and treatment after reinstatement.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims of direct race and religion discrimination.
The key reason was that the claimant failed to show he was treated less favourably than an actual or hypothetical comparator because of his protected characteristics. The tribunal considered each of the 17 allegations individually and found no link to race or religion.
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- To succeed in a direct discrimination claim, you must show not just unfair treatment, but that the treatment was because of a protected characteristic like race or religion.
- Having a comparator – someone in similar circumstances but without your protected characteristic – is crucial. Without it, the claim is likely to fail.
- Being reinstated after dismissal does not automatically mean you were discriminated against; the treatment after return must also be linked to a protected characteristic.
- A large number of allegations does not strengthen a case if each one lacks evidence of discriminatory motive.
What this case shows in practice
A Dot Com driver for Tesco brought 17 separate allegations of direct race and religion discrimination, covering his disciplinary investigation, dismissal, and treatment after being reinstated on appeal. He argued that his British Asian ethnicity and Muslim faith led to less favourable treatment throughout. However, the tribunal found that none of the incidents were linked to his protected characteristics.
The case illustrates the high bar for direct discrimination claims. Even where an employee feels unfairly treated – for example, being dismissed for gross misconduct while others may have received different outcomes – the tribunal requires concrete evidence that the treatment was 'because of' race or religion. Here, the claimant was the only one of two dismissed colleagues to be reinstated on appeal, which undermined his argument that Tesco was biased against him.
What Tesco did right
Tesco was able to show that its decisions were based on the claimant's conduct, not his race or religion. The disciplinary process followed its policies, and the appeal panel overturned the dismissal after considering new evidence – a step that actually benefited the claimant. The tribunal noted that the claimant's reinstatement was a positive outcome that was inconsistent with a discriminatory motive.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that discrimination claims require more than a perception of unfairness. Employees must identify a comparator – real or hypothetical – in similar circumstances who was treated more favourably. Without that, and without evidence linking the treatment to a protected characteristic, the claim will fail. For employers, it shows that following a fair process and being willing to correct mistakes on appeal can help defend against discrimination allegations.
Similar cases
Reinstated HGV driver allowed to pursue victimisation claim after dismissal overturned on appeal
An HGV driver with 12 years' service was reinstated after a successful appeal against dismissal for gross misconduct. The tribunal allowed his victimisation claims to proceed but dismissed direct race discrimination claims as out of time.
Race discrimination claim dismissed after social worker missed time limit
An experienced social worker's race discrimination and constructive dismissal claims against Devon County Council were dismissed because she presented her claim too late, and the tribunal refused to extend time.
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.
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.