Trainee pharmacy adviser's race and sex discrimination claims against Boots dismissed
A trainee pharmacy adviser who alleged she was discriminated against because of her race and sex when she was not signed off her training programme has had her claims dismissed by the Reading Employment Tribunal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #trainee-pharmacy-adviser
- #performance-improvement-plan
- #failure-to-sign-off
- #name-badge
- #discount-card
- #grievance
- #out-of-time
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a trainee pharmacy adviser from 16 October 2017.
- The claimant was not signed off the dispenser training programme due to performance concerns.
- The claimant alleged bullying by Maureen Lee and Lisa Shady, but the tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence.
- The claimant's grievance of 6 October 2020 was considered a protected act, but the alleged detriments occurred before it.
- All claims of direct sex discrimination, direct race discrimination, and victimisation were dismissed.
- The respondent's application for costs was dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a trainee pharmacy adviser at Boots Camberley store.
-
Performance improvement plan
Claimant was placed on a PIP due to performance concerns.
-
Alleged grievance submission
Claimant claims she submitted a grievance to Maureen Lee and Tanya Rudak, but the tribunal found she did not.
-
Transfer to Farnborough
Claimant transferred to Farnborough store; Andrew Gascoigne believed she was close to sign-off.
-
Sent to Frimley Green
Claimant temporarily worked at Frimley Green to gain dispensary experience.
-
Letter to Chief Executive
Claimant wrote to the Chief Executive raising concerns about her treatment.
-
Meeting on progress
Meeting with Andrew Gascoigne and Sarah Harrold; claimant told she needed to improve to be signed off.
-
Decision not to sign off
Andrew Gascoigne decided claimant would not be signed off and moved her to customer adviser role.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant raised a grievance alleging discrimination and bullying; treated as protected act.
-
Grievance outcome
Elaheh Mokhtari issued outcome letter; most complaints not upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the trainee pharmacy adviser was subjected to direct race discrimination, direct sex discrimination, and victimisation in relation to her training, performance management, and other treatment, and whether any claims were brought in time.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims of direct race discrimination, direct sex discrimination, and victimisation.
The key reasons were:
- The tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's witnesses over the claimant's, finding that the decision not to sign off her training was based on genuine performance concerns.
- The alleged protected act (grievance) occurred after the alleged detriments, so the victimisation claim failed.
- No compensation was awarded as all claims were dismissed.
The respondent's application for costs was also dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Keep a clear record of performance concerns and the steps taken to address them, as this can help defend against discrimination claims.
- Ensure any grievance or protected act is raised before the alleged detrimental treatment occurs to support a victimisation claim.
- Tribunals will carefully examine whether decisions are based on objective performance issues rather than protected characteristics.
This case shows how difficult it can be for an employee to prove discrimination when an employer can point to genuine performance concerns. The trainee pharmacy adviser, who is Hungarian, claimed she was treated less favourably than British colleagues and male colleagues when she was not signed off her dispenser training programme. However, the tribunal accepted Boots' evidence that her performance was the issue, not her race or sex.
What could have been done differently
The claimant could have raised her grievance earlier and ensured it was properly documented. The tribunal found that her alleged protected act (a grievance) came after the decisions she complained about, which undermined her victimisation claim. Employers should also ensure that performance management decisions are well-documented and consistently applied to avoid perceptions of bias.
Why this result matters
This case reinforces that tribunals will scrutinise discrimination claims carefully and will not automatically assume bias where there is a legitimate performance reason. It also highlights the importance of timing: a protected act must precede the alleged detriment for a victimisation claim to succeed. For employees, it is crucial to raise concerns promptly and keep evidence of any discriminatory treatment.
Similar cases
Business manager's constructive dismissal claim fails over PIP process
A business manager with 8 years' service resigned after being invited to a second disciplinary hearing for underperformance. The tribunal found no breach of trust and confidence and dismissed his constructive unfair dismissal claim.
Agency worker's multiple claims struck out: no jurisdiction and out of time
An agency worker who worked for less than two years had his unfair dismissal, unpaid wages, and breach of contract claims dismissed by the tribunal, along with human exploitation allegations which the tribunal had no power to hear.
Healthcare assistant's whistleblowing claim thrown out for being over two years late
A healthcare assistant who waited over two years to bring a whistleblowing and discrimination claim after his dismissal had his case dismissed as out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have presented the claim within the statutory time limit.
Care worker resigned after 'so bipolar' comment and sudden role change: constructive dismissal claim allowed to proceed
A care assessment officer who was told she was 'so bipolar' and had her role changed with less than 24 hours' notice has been allowed to add protected disclosure claims to her constructive dismissal case.