Voluntary redundancy dispute: claims for discrimination and constructive dismissal struck out
A former employee's claims for associative race discrimination, constructive unfair dismissal, age discrimination and victimisation were struck out or made subject to a deposit order after the tribunal found they had no reasonable prospects of success.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #age-discrimination
- #victimisation
- #associative-race-discrimination
- #constructive-unfair-dismissal
- #deposit-order
Key facts
- The claimant accepted voluntary redundancy after receiving information from the HR Director.
- The claimant declined the opportunity to withdraw from voluntary redundancy.
- The claimant raised concerns about the dismissal of Jamal Abdi but could not identify a protected act.
- The claimant's claims for direct associative race discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal were struck out.
- The claimant's claims for direct age discrimination and victimisation were ordered to be subject to a deposit.
Timeline
-
Email sent by claimant
The claimant sent an email that she later argued was a protected act.
-
Email sent by claimant
The claimant sent another email that she later argued was a protected act.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Bartlett struck out victimisation claims relating to Jamal Abdi's dismissal.
-
Judgment on preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Bartlett issued judgment striking out those claims.
-
Final hearing
Employment Judge Coll struck out associative race discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal claims, and ordered a deposit for age discrimination and victimisation claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's claims for associative race discrimination, constructive unfair dismissal, direct age discrimination, and victimisation had reasonable prospects of success, and whether a deposit order should be made for the remaining claims.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claimant's claims for direct associative race discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal, finding they had no reasonable prospects of success. The claims for direct age discrimination and victimisation were ordered to be subject to a deposit, as they had little reasonable prospect of success.
Key reasons:
- The claimant could not identify a protected act for the victimisation claim.
- The claimant accepted voluntary redundancy after receiving correct information and declined the opportunity to withdraw.
- The claimant's decision to accept redundancy was based on correct information, undermining the age discrimination claim.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out or made subject to a deposit order.
Lessons & takeaways
- To bring a victimisation claim, you must be able to identify a specific protected act – general concerns about unfair treatment are not enough.
- If you accept voluntary redundancy after receiving correct information and decline an opportunity to withdraw, it will be very difficult to argue that you were forced out by discrimination.
- Tribunals can strike out claims at an early stage if they have no reasonable prospects of success, so it is important to have clear evidence to support each element of your claim.
- Representing yourself without legal advice can make it harder to identify the legal basis for your claims – consider seeking advice before bringing a tribunal case.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the difficulties that can arise when an employee tries to link a voluntary redundancy process to discrimination. The former employee accepted voluntary redundancy after receiving information from the HR Director. She later argued that the information was incorrect and that she was targeted because of her age, and that her emails about a colleague's dismissal were protected acts. However, the tribunal found that she could not point to a clear protected act, and that her decision to accept redundancy was based on correct information.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have strengthened her case by keeping clear records of any conversations or emails that explicitly raised concerns about race discrimination. She also could have sought legal advice before accepting voluntary redundancy, especially if she believed the information she was given was incorrect. Declining the opportunity to withdraw from the redundancy scheme significantly undermined her claim that she was forced out.
Why this result matters for similar claims
This case serves as a reminder that tribunals will scrutinise claims carefully at an early stage. If a claimant cannot identify a protected act or show that they suffered a detriment because of a protected characteristic, the claim may be struck out. It also shows that accepting a voluntary redundancy package can make it very difficult to later argue constructive dismissal or discrimination, particularly if the employee had a chance to withdraw and did not take it.
Similar cases
HR Business Partner dismissed after one month for whistleblowing: £74,540 awarded
An HR Business Partner who raised concerns about a flawed redundancy process was dismissed after just one month. The tribunal awarded £74,540 after striking out the employer's response.
31-year employee made redundant: tribunal upholds fairness despite missed consultations
A tribunal has ruled that Wolseley UK Limited fairly dismissed a long-serving employee by reason of redundancy, rejecting claims of age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.
11 years' service, clean record: misconduct dismissal upheld despite disability
A tribunal dismissed all claims from a former employee with 11 years' service and a clean disciplinary record, finding his misconduct dismissal fair and not discriminatory.
Victimisation after reporting sexual harassment: a teenager dismissed for speaking up
A 16-year-old front-of-house worker was dismissed three days after her mother confronted the manager about sexual harassment by a chef. The Manchester tribunal awarded £13,886 for victimisation.