race discrimination case study uk

Two real examples of racism at work and what happened next

Content / trigger warning.

We always try our best to give users the facts of each case, some of which include harmful language and descriptions of awful behaviour. The following examples might be emotionally challenging to read, especially if you’re going through something similar. This can manifest feelings of discomfort and upset, among other unpleasant emotions. We encourage you to reach out to friends or family for additional support if this content is particularly distressing. These stories are not for shock value, but to give you a sense of how you could be successful. We are here to support you in your journey in fighting back against your toxic workplace.

If you’re dealing with racism at work, you’re not alone.  According to Financial News , race discrimination claims to Employment Tribunals rose by 48% in the UK in 2020. In this article, we look at two real life examples of direct race discrimination claims. We explore which arguments were successful, which failed, and why.

What is racial discrimination?

There are 4 types of race discrimination:

• direct race discrimination
• indirect race discrimination
• harassment related to race
• victimisation because of raising or supporting a concern about race.

In this article, we deal with direct race discrimination , which means being treated less favourably because of your race, which is a “protected characteristic”. Learn more about the 9 protected characteristics .

These days, direct racial discrimination in the workplace is often less obvious -- it’s unlikely that you’ll be told outright, ‘you’re not receiving benefit X because you’re of race Y’. It’s more likely that an event, or series of events, will happen which suggest racial discrimination or unconscious bias.

That causes a difficulty of proving discrimination or unconscious bias. In both of these examples, we’ll show how proof makes the difference in winning or losing a claim.

Example 1: a direct race discrimination case where a white staff member was treated more favourably

What happened.

Balin was a security guard for a company which provided services to a large department store in London. One day, Balin was given door opening duty with another security guard.  The other security guard was then called to a different task so a supervisor, Fraser, stepped in. The department store had a very specific door opening protocol, which was not properly completed. As a result, customers were unable to enter the store.

Balin already had 2 written warnings on his file for (1) failing to report for 2 shifts and (2) sitting down at work when he was supposed to stand at all times. Balin’s employer started disciplinary proceedings against him, resulting in his dismissal. Balin raised a claim for direct discrimination on the basis of his race, which was Bangladeshi.

Balin’s complaint focused on 3 actions taken by his employer:

• the serving of an invalid written warning
• the failure of his employer to rescind that written warning and
• his dismissal.

The decision

The Employment Tribunal didn’t agree that acts 1 and 2 were discriminatory. This was, in part, because Balin didn’t provide any evidence that a colleague of a different race had been, or would be, treated more favourably for a similar lapse. In other words, Balin didn’t provide a ‘comparator’.

However, Balin was successful in his third argument - that he was dismissed because of racial discrimination. Balin used Fraser (the supervisor who stepped in to perform door opening duty) as a comparator. Fraser was white. Following the incident:

• Fraser was given the opportunity to explain his version of events. Balin wasn’t.
• Fraser was given the opportunity to provide a written statement. Balin wasn’t.  
• HR advised that if Fraser was partially responsible for completing the door opening protocol, his conduct should be investigated too. That never happened.

It wasn’t just the successful use of a comparator that won the argument. Throughout the disciplinary process, the employer made a large number of procedural errors:

• Balin’s repeated requests to see CCTV footage of the incident were denied, even though others had seen this.
• He was kept waiting at a meeting for 2 hours.
• He was given only 2 days' notice of a meeting.
• An investigative report was factually incorrect, stating that doors were left open, rather than being left shut.
• A report said Balin had worked there for 2 years, which he hadn’t.
• Balin was given the wrong address for a meeting.
• A meeting was conducted in a communal room, with other staff (including Fraser) coming in and out.  

The Employment Tribunal decided that due to the number and type of procedural errors, discrimination could be inferred. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the employer had done enough to show that they had a good reason for the treatment, which did not relate to race.

What you can learn from this

Identifying an appropriate comparator is a crucial part of demonstrating direct discrimination. When Balin presented an example of a white staff member being treated more favourably than him in a very similar situation, he was able to show that he had suffered racial discrimination at work.  

However, don’t be discouraged if you’re having difficulty finding a comparator. If an actual comparator isn’t available, a Tribunal may be able to construct a hypothetical comparator. This means someone whose circumstances are not exactly the same as yours, but similar enough to show that treatment was because of your protected characteristic. Read more about hypothetical comparators here.

We may not immediately think of procedural irregularities as being obviously discriminatory behaviour, but they were in this case. This highlights the importance of gathering evidence (you can use Valla to do this). Balin’s third argument included details of many actions which, taken alone, may have been forgivable but, taken together, constituted racial discrimination.

Read Balin’s full Employment Tribunal decision

Example 2: a direct race discrimination case involving mistreatment of a Black employee

Sergeant P was an infantry soldier in the Army. Following a period of long term sickness absence, he was posted to the Training Wing of the Military Correction Training Centre. Sergeant P was subject to an appraisal process known as a Soldiers Joint Appraisal Report (SJAR).

He brought an Employment Tribunal claim against the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for direct discrimination on the basis of his race, which was Black Afro-Caribbean.

The complaint was based on 3 events:

• Comments in a WhatsApp group chat: Sergeant P read messages which referred to his absence from work: “...he [Sergeant P] gets fecking everywhere… except work”.
• A critical SJAR: Sergeant P was criticised as “happy to do the minimum expected of him”. At no stage prior had he been informed of any shortcomings in his performance. Sergeant P also relied upon an email which included the phrase “people like him”.
• The ‘Right Turn’ course: the SJAR claimed that Sergeant P was observed instructing the ‘Right Turn’ course. His performance was rated as poor. However, Sergeant P didn’t actually teach the course. In fact, the course was taught by the only other Black Sergeant at the training wing, Sergeant R.

Sergeant P argued that acts 1 and 2 were the result of a stereotypical assumption that Black Afro-Caribbean people are lazy and that act 3 was a result of confusing 2 soldiers just because they were of the same race.

The Employment Tribunal didn’t agree that the comments on the WhatsApp chat were discriminatory - they were insulting and inappropriate, but not racially motivated. The comments were an expression of frustration that Sergeant P had been absent from work for long periods of time. The Tribunal had no basis to believe that equally inappropriate comments wouldn’t have been made about a white person who was absent from work for long periods of time.  

Sergeant P’s second complaint (the negative SJAR report) was also unsuccessful. The Tribunal acknowledged the sad reality that the stereotype of Afro-Caribbean people as lazy does exist. However, that had no impact on the assessment of the facts of the case. The Tribunal said the evidence demonstrated that the comments in the SJAR were based on actual feedback, not a stereotypical assessment of Sergeant P as an Afro-Caribbean. The Tribunal reviewed Sergeant R’s SJAR. It was substantively different. This indicated that the two Black sergeants were being assessed individually. In the context it was said, the Tribunal found the “people like him” reference to mean poor performing soldiers, not Afro-Caribbean soldiers.  

However, the third argument (the ‘Right Turn’ course) was successful. The Tribunal agreed the mistaken observation and the race of the Sergeant who taught the course was enough to infer that the MoD could have committed unlawful discrimination. It was then for the MoD to demonstrate that race played no part whatsoever in the mistake, which they were unable to do.

Bad treatment of an employee who has a protected characteristic isn’t enough to establish a case of direct discrimination. There must be ‘something more’ to link the bad treatment to the protected characteristic. This shows the importance of gathering as much evidence as possible.

Read the full Employment Tribunal decision for Sergeant P

How to progress your race discrimination claim

More and more people are standing up against racism at work. If you think you may have a case for racial discrimination, our platform can help you understand the law, gather your evidence and start a claim in the Employment Tribunal. If you need to consult a lawyer, this could save you a lot of time, and money by having it all in one place. Sign up for your free account.

Get the free toolkit

Do you have a story like this.

Show people being treated unfairly at work that they're not alone, and what others did in similar situations.

Share your story to help others like you.

Get our latest updates, guides and news

Our customers rate us excellent.

• LOGIN / FREE TRIAL

‘Let’s celebrate those who have a phenomenal impact on nursing’

STEVE FORD, EDITOR

• Assessment skills
• Children’s nursing
• Hospital nursing
• You are here: Leadership

Senior nurse wins ‘landmark’ race discrimination case against NHS

24 February, 2023 By Megan Ford

A senior Black nurse in the North West has won what has been described as a “landmark” employment tribunal against NHS England and NHS Improvement for racial discrimination.

The judgement, published on Monday, found that Michelle Cox had been treated unfavourably by her employer because of her race and because she was willing to speak up.

“It sadly proves that institutional racism is still present in organisations" Michelle Cox

Ms Cox, who was employed by NHS England and NHS Improvement Commissioning as a continuing healthcare manager based in Manchester, faced discrimination, harassment and victimisation from her employer between 2019 and 2021, the tribunal held late last year heard.

The nurse, who was appointed as the regional lead to the Chief Nursing Officer’s Black Minority Ethnic Strategic Advisory Group in 2018, was found to have been excluded by her line manager, Gill Paxton, at “every opportunity”.

The judgement ruled that her line manager had “created an intimidating and hostile and humiliating environment” for Ms Cox at work.

The tribunal heard how Ms Paxton purposely excluded Ms Cox from team events, including two team away-days that were arranged for occasions she could not attend.

One of these days was scheduled for a time Ms Cox was due to be at a national conference for minority ethnic nurses.

In addition, the tribunal found that Ms Paxton had discussed Ms Cox’s health with a team member and during the same conversation had tried to "encourage" that staff member to report Ms Cox.

Ms Paxton also excluded Ms Cox from the recruitment process for two new senior posts in her team.

“The tribunal found that [the line manager] went to some length to circumvent the claimant and had intended that the claimant would not be involved, without any good reason,” said the judgement.

Another incident saw Ms Cox not being informed that one of her team members had been promoted to a band 8b position.

In January 2020, Ms Cox sent a formal letter of grievance complaining about some of these issues. She had said she felt “undermined, marginalised and ignored”.

“We hope this ruling now drives change and provides greater accountability for poor behaviours and actions” Estephanie Dunn

But the tribunal found that the outcome of that grievance carried out by her employer had failed to address the "underlying issue of race discrimination” that had been raised.

The possibility of discrimination was only alluded to by way of the employer saying there was "no evidence of any actions or behaviours having been deliberate or a deliberate attempt to discriminate against the claimant on grounds of race”.

Instead, the employer's response to the grievance had only went as far as to suggest that Ms Paxton had "made some poor management decisions which had comprised and upset the claimant”, the tribunal determined.

“The tribunal considered this conclusion to be woefully inadequate – it fails to consider or address whether certain actions may have been subconscious bias or racially motivated,” it added.

It also raised concerns about a subsequent grievance appeal lodged by Ms Cox.

Meanwhile, the tribunal also upheld Ms Cox’s complaint of detriment for whistleblowing.

It found that Ms Cox had raised concerns at work that amounted to protected whistleblowing complaints, and that this had likely affected the way she was treated at work.

One example highlighted of Ms Cox blowing the whistle was when she complained about her team members sitting on independent review panels – something she highlighted was a breach of independence and legal obligations.

Her line manager Ms Paxton “dismissed” the issue and said she had “cleared it with legal”. However, the tribunal judgement said there was “no evidence” that this was the case.

The tribunal ruled that the less favourable way in which Ms Cox had been treated overall was “because of race”.

Ms Cox, who was represented by the Royal College of Nursing’s counsel at the employment tribunal, said: “I am clearly delighted with the outcome.

"I was confident that the evidence put forward demonstrated a pattern in discriminatory behaviours due to the colour of my skin.

“It sadly proves that institutional racism is still present in organisations, despite the efforts to make it more inclusive for people of all races and backgrounds."

She added: “I want this outcome to send a strong message to anyone facing similar behaviour in the workplace, particularly due to race, to have the courage to speak up.

“Little too often does this behaviour just become the ‘norm’ for many colleagues, it needs to be challenged more often and organisations need to work towards a no tolerance policy where discriminatory attitudes, behaviour and racism is concerned.”

“No one should ever experience racism, discrimination or prejudice at work” NHS England

She said she hoped this “landmark outcome leaves a legacy for change for staff experiencing race discrimination”.

Ferguson Doyle, senior legal officer and solicitor for the RCN in the North West who supported Ms Cox’s case, said one of the reasons why this case was landmark was because the employer’s mishandling of Ms Cox's grievance and appeal "were found to be acts of discrimination in themselves".

Meanwhile, Estephanie Dunn, regional director for the RCN in the North West, said "far too few" cases like that of Ms Cox's reached this stage.

“We hope this ruling now drives change and provides greater accountability for poor behaviours and actions," she added.

An NHS England spokesperson said: “No one should ever experience racism, discrimination or prejudice at work and NHS England will fully consider the learning from the employment tribunal.”

In addition, a statement for the NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board – where Ms Paxton now works – said: “We are committed to creating an environment that recognises and values the diversity of all colleagues and people using our services.

“We will consider the outcome of the tribunal and any actions for our organisation.”

• Add to Bookmarks

Congratulations, Michelle!

As a black nurse is good to know that we can still rely on the justice. Unfortunately, discrimination and exclusion due to the colour of our skin is something that is recurrent within the NHS. Talking from own experience. Thanks Michelle, for fighting for a change for change. Thanks for giving many, hope.

Have your say

Sign in or Register a new account to join the discussion.

• Equality and Diversity

12 Notorious UK Discrimination Cases

on 01 Mar 2024

Discrimination takes many forms, from gender or age to well-intentioned or just malicious. We examine some of the most serious, high-profile cases in the UK.

No matter what guise it adopts, discriminatory behaviour is never anything but harmful. One in five UK adults experience workplace discrimination . As a result, more and more people are beginning to take a stand against it and are challenging employers and entire institutions in court or the employment tribunal.

Of the many discrimination cases appearing before judges and investigators in the UK, some truly stand out for their severity or uniqueness. We take a look at just how varied cases of discrimination can be.

Dirty dozen of the worst UK discrimination cases

• When age is not just a number, and neither is a hefty fine
• Discrimination plagues NHS England
• BNP Paribas' #MeToo moment
• Police force has deaf ears about hearing tests
• An important lesson for teacher's employer
• Lost in translation
• Home Office worries lead to internal consequences
• Fit to carry a child but not carry out her job
• The inability to read or tell time doesn't equal dishonesty
• Turning a frown into a smile
• Pink or Punk?
• The cake case that takes the biscuit

1. When age is not just a number, and neither is a hefty fine

An 89-year-old NHS secretary, Eileen Jolly, became the oldest person in the UK to win an age discrimination claim . Her superiors at Reading's Royal Berkshire Hospital fired her, claiming that she was stuck in her "old secretarial ways" and that she had demonstrated a "catastrophic failure in performance".

In a nutshell, Eileen was fired for not having the ability to use a modern computer. However, the employment tribunal found that "there was evidence of the claimant's training having been inadequate, incomplete and the 'on the job' training was ad hoc and not directed". While Eileen never got her job back, she did end up £200,000 richer!

2. Discrimination plagues NHS England

Liverpool senior nurse, Michelle Cox, won a landmark case against NHS England Improvement after the court heard evidence of her harassment and victimisation by her employer. Furthermore, her whistleblowing claims were disregarded after she raised a grievance and an appeal.

The employment tribunal found that Ms Cox's manager, Gill Pax, side-lined, undermined and intimidated her. Direct discrimination in the form of purposefully excluding Ms Cox from team away days and Pax excluding her from recruiting to new senior posts in her team.

These are two examples of several occasions of direct discrimination. The tribunal found that Ms Cox was a victim of a "hostile and humiliating environment". She was supported by the Royal College of Nursing and is in line to secure substantial compensation after being dismissed and discredited by her manager between 2019 and 2021.

3. BNP Paribas' #MeToo moment

A female broker won her sexual discrimination case against BNP Paribas . Stacey Macken told the tribunal that her mostly-male colleagues routinely subjected her to humiliating and sexist behaviour , such as leaving a witch's hat on her desk. She also said that her boss often answered with "Not now, Stacey" when asked a question.

As if that wasn't bad enough, Macken claimed that the bank frequently carried out her performance reviews in a way that made light of her contributions.

Unsurprisingly, this meant that she often missed out on bonuses that were dished out readily to her male colleagues, and the tribunal ruled that they couldn't find any evidence to the contrary. In the end, Macken won £2m from the sexual discrimination case.

4. Police force has deaf ears about hearing tests

In one of the more unusual cases on this list, a policewoman who is not disabled has won a claim against the police force for direct disability discrimination. Lisa Coffey was given a standard medical examination that revealed hearing loss upon joining the force. However, since she could pass the force's practical hearing test, she was permitted to work without requiring any adjustments.

Two years after she started working as a constable, Coffey applied for a transfer to another police force and was once again required to undergo a medical test. The results of this test were identical to the first; however, the Acting Chief Inspector refused her application because her hearing loss was likely to deteriorate in the future. The employment tribunal found this perception to be direct disability discrimination and awarded Coffey £26,616.05 in compensation.

5. An important lesson for teacher's employer

Gary Day-Davies, a teacher, diagnosed with bipolar disorder, won a case against United Learning Trust for their discriminatory treatment. After initially being suspended for being unfit to work, Day-Davies took appropriate measures to enable a speedy recovery. However, once he obtained proof from his GP and a psychologist that he was fit to work once more, the trust rejected this evidence, and his suspension was upheld.

While Manchester's employment tribunal ruled that the trust was right to initially suspend Day-Davies, rejecting solid recommendations from health professionals for no logical reason was not. In the end, the tribunal ruled that this was little more than a classic case of disability discrimination.

6. Lost in translation

A couple were awarded £2,500 in compensation after they suffered racial discrimination at the hands of a car sales company. Kin Hung Wong, a man of Chinese descent, and his wife, a Hong Kong national, visited John Mulholland Motors to buy a new car. Wong conducted all negotiations with staff in English, his first language. However, when explaining certain aspects of the sale to his wife, he switched to Cantonese, her mother tongue.

Regrettably, this was something that didn't go down too well with the staff present, who kept asking them to switch to English "because we are in the UK", despite Wong explaining that his wife can't speak it well enough to engage in a proper conversation. Wong said they were treated aggressively and rudely and not even offered a handshake once the sale was complete. The judge ruled that John Mulholland Motors's staff had "created a degrading and humiliating environment", which is why he ultimately ruled in the couple's favour.

7. Home Office worries lead to internal consequences

In what can only be described as a devastating let-down, British-born Vitesh Patel was fired from his dream job a mere two hours after being hired! With seven years of rising through the Home Office ranks under his belt, Patel applied to be an immigration liaison officer in New Delhi. He aced the interview, and an email confirming the post followed shortly after.

Unfortunately, he soon received another email that effectively fired him since his family connections in India presented "a risk that the employee may come under significant and unwelcome external pressure - in addition to the obvious conflict of interest risks." The employment tribunal found that Patel's unfair dismissal was racially discriminatory since his ethnic origin was used as grounds to deny him an opportunity he deserved.

8. Fit to carry a child but not carry out her job

A pregnant policewoman won a sex discrimination case against Devon and Cornwall Police after she was forced to move from the front line to a desk-bound position. Once PC Natalie Town informed her superiors about the pregnancy, she was given no choice but to move to the Crime Management Hub. Her employers believed this was "safe and suitable for a pregnant woman" despite her receiving advice that she was fit to carry out her regular role.

PC Town did not take the change well and felt it would permanently harm her career. As a result, she developed anxiety, depression, and migraine headaches, leading to a lengthy absence from work. The employment tribunal ruled that PC Town was a victim of indirect sex discrimination . Therefore, women were at a particular disadvantage in the form of susceptibility to an enforced transfer from an operational role to a non-operational role".

9. The inability to read or tell time doesn't equal dishonesty

Meseret Kumulchew, a dyslexic woman, beat Starbucks in a disability discrimination case after being wrongly accused of falsifying documents. The accusation was made after she mistakenly entered incorrect information on certain documents due to her condition, making it hard to read, write or tell the time.

Quite understandably, Kumulchew took the wild accusations badly, telling the BBC, "I nearly ended my life. But I had to think of my kids. I know I'm not a fraud. I just made a mistake." The employment tribunal uncovered that the coffee shop had not made any reasonable adjustments for dyslexic workers , thereby discriminating against Kumulchew because of her condition .

10. Turning a frown into a smile

In 2016, an Orthodox Jewish nursery fired Zelda De Groen from her job as a teacher. The reason for her dismissal was that people found out she was living with her boyfriend without being married, something generally frowned upon by the Orthodox Jewish community. After making the discovery, the school asked De Groen to tell the parents that she had changed living arrangements. When she refused, she was fired.

She took her case to the employment tribunal in 2017, where they found that she had suffered from both sex and religious discrimination. However, the nursery immediately appealed, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal later concluded that only the sex discrimination verdict applied. The nursery was cleared of the religious discrimination charge after the judge, Mr Justice Swift stated that employers are allowed to act to the detriment of an employee based on the employer's beliefs but not on the worker's .

11. Pink or Punk?

Another particularly odd case on this list involves a man who sued a brewery for refusing to serve him a drink at a discounted price. Ironically, Cardiff's Brewdog had relabelled some of their 'Punk IPA' bottles as 'Pink IPA' to raise awareness about the gender pay gap , selling them a pound cheaper than the standard drink. However, to buy one, you had to be a woman, which is where the root of this case lies.

When 27-year-old Thomas Bower, a male, tried to purchase a £4 bottle of Pink IPA, he was refused due to his gender . Oddly enough, he was allowed to purchase it after lying to the barman he identified as female. District Judge Phillips ruled in Bower's favour, finding the brewery guilty of sexual discrimination, adding that Bower must have felt "humiliated", which is why he was awarded £1,000 in compensation.

12. The cake case that takes the biscuit

Possibly the most high-profile discrimination case in UK history involves a 'gay marriage cake' . The trouble all started when Ashers Baking Company, a bakery with evangelical Christian owners, refused to bake a cake with a pro-gay marriage message due to their religious beliefs. The case was heard by several different courts, with judges initially siding against the bakery, deeming their refusal to be discriminatory.

However, in 2018 the supreme court went against previously made judgements. Instead, it ruled that the bakery had every right to refuse baking a cake that is against their beliefs, thereby clearing Ashers of all discrimination charges. Gareth Lee, the customer who originally ordered the cake, said he would take the case to the European Court.

Want to learn more about Equality & Compliance?

We’ve created a comprehensive Equality & Diversity roadmap to help you navigate the compliance landscape, supported by e-learning in our Essentials Library .

We also have 100+ free compliance training aids , including assessments, best practice guides, checklists, desk aids, eBooks, games, posters, training presentations and even e-learning modules!

Finally, the SkillcastConnect community provides a unique opportunity to network with other compliance professionals in a vendor-free environment, priority access to our free online learning portal and other exclusive benefits.

Workplace Harassment Training Presentation

Harassment and discrimination can take many different forms, and your employees must be aware of what it is and how discrimination affects the workplace.

By raising employee awareness of equality and diversity and explaining why discrimination needs to be stopped, you can help stamp out harassment.

Download your free training aid

Related articles.

7 Tips for Workplace Equality & Diversity

Workplace discrimination remains a major concern for UK businesses. To help, we have produced 7 tips to help you...

Continue reading

Handling Protected Characteristics at Work

It's unlawful to discriminate against employees with protected characteristics. We unpack these traits and how to...

What is Positive Discrimination & Why is it Unlawful?

In the UK, positive discrimination is illegal. We examine why this positive is actually a negative and how to avoid it.

Racial Discrimination Case: Allay (UK) Ltd v Gehlen (4 February 2021)

Protected Characteristic involved: Race Legal Principle involved: Reasonable steps defence under s109(4) Equality Act 2010 UK or EU Judgement? UK – EAT

Why is this case important?

There are only a few reported cases regarding the reasonable steps defence. There is a high  threshold to establish all reasonable steps have been taken, and offering training as a tick-box exercise is unlikely to suffice. When seeking to rely on training as a step, employers should note that the Tribunal will review the quality of the training and how regularly it is provided.

What’s the case about?

The Claimant, Mr Gehlen, worked as a senior data analyst and after being dismissed for poor performance, he claimed at ET that he had been subject to race discrimination and racial harassment. The Tribunal determined that Mr Gehlen had been subjected to regular racist comments and his claim for racial harassment was upheld. The Respondent tried to on the reasonable steps defence, namely that it had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment, due to its policies and provision of relevant training to employees including the perpetrator. The perpetrator had received anti-bullying and harassment training, and equality and diversity training, some 20 months earlier. However, the defence failed and the Respondent appealed.

The EAT stated that it was entitled to find that the training delivered to employees had become “stale” and required refreshing. The original ET decision was upheld.

The EAT said it is legitimate to consider how effective the steps were likely to be and how effective they have proved to be in practice. In this case, the training was no longer effective as demonstrated by the racist comments. A further reasonable step would have been to offer refresher training, and therefore the employer could not show that all reasonable steps had been taken. The fact that the perpetrator was required to undergo training after the harassment was further evidence that it was necessary.

What do you need to know?

Simply offering training as a tick-box exercise is unlikely to suffice, employers must consider the quality of the training and how regularly it is provided.

Read more discrimination  case law articles .

Your web browser is outdated and may be insecure

The RCN recommends using an updated browser such as Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome

North West nurse wins landmark case against NHSE&I for racial discrimination

A North West senior nurse has won an employment tribunal against NHS England and Improvement (NHSE&I) after the judge heard evidence that her employer had treated her unfavourably because of her race and because she was willing to speak-up.

Michelle Cox from Liverpool, was employed by NHSE&I Commissioning as a Continuing Healthcare Manager, based in Manchester from May 2017.  She describes herself as a black woman and was the only black nurse in the employer’s North region in 2018, when she was appointed as the regional lead to the Chief Nursing Officer’s Black Minority Ethnic Strategic Advisory Group.  At an employment tribunal in Manchester late last year (2022), the tribunal heard evidence that Ms Cox, between 2019 and 2021, had faced discrimination, harassment and victimisation from her employer and her whistleblowing claims had not been upheld after she raised a grievance and appeal.  After deliberation, the tribunal has now (on 15 February 2023) unanimously found in favour of Ms Cox’s claims.   During the hearing, NHSE&I called upon a number of witnesses to give statements.  In the case of her line manager Ms Gill Paxton, Employment Judge Batten described her evidence as ‘less than credible’.   Saying: ‘Her responses to cross-examination were often unhelpful, evasive or defensive. At times, she sought to avoid answering questions from Counsel for the claimant or did not explain her evidence despite it being probed.’  The tribunal heard how Ms Cox faced direct discrimination by her manager on several occasions, with the tribunal hearing evidence of her being purposely excluded from team events, including at least two team away-days that were arranged for occasions she couldn’t attend.  One such incident was scheduled for a time she was due to be at the Chief Nurses Office’s Black Minority Ethnic conference.  On another occasion, Ms Cox was also not informed that a team member, junior to herself, had been promoted and ‘was acting up,’ despite a thorough, fair and proper recruitment process not being followed.  This was also contrary to anti-discrimination recruitment practices.  Her manager then excluded her from recruiting to new senior posts in her team.   The tribunal heard that Ms Cox raised concerns about work practices throughout her employment and was dismissed or discredited by her manager.  On one occasion, an issue was raised by Ms Cox regarding Independent Review Panels, which her team members were ‘sitting on’.  Ms Cox pointed out that this was a breach of independence and legal obligations.  However, her manager dismissed her claim and told her she ‘had cleared it with legal’.  There was no evidence to suggest this had ever happened.  The final insult, and most alarmingly, was confidential information about Ms Cox’s health being discussed by her manager with a team member during which she encouraged the team member to report concerns she had regarding Ms Cox.  Having raised an internal grievance regarding the process, the tribunal heard evidence that the employer failed to uphold her grievance despite the underlying findings made.  Her evidence regarding discrimination at her grievance, which also included evidence of another BME employee only getting an equivalent pay uplift after it was highlighted her white counterpart had received the same, was dismissed in the internal processes.  Ms Cox’s role on the Chief Nurse Black Minority Ethnic Strategic Advisory Group was to make sure issues impacting on BME staff, and particularly BME nurses, are raised if there are specific issues pertaining to recruitment, retention, career pathway and staff experience of BME staff.  Ms Cox therefore questioned the organisation as to how she could fulfil this role when she was aware ‘that the very issues that I speak publicly about, trying to eradicate poor practices, are currently happening to myself within my team with a potential to impact on my professional reputation and as a registrant.’   On examination of the grievance process for the purposes of the tribunal case, it was deemed that outcome was ‘inadequate in a number of respects, particularly because it failed to examine the claimant’s complaint, the essence of which was that her treatment (by Ms Paxton) was race discrimination.’ Ms Cox, who was represented by the Royal College of Nursing’s (RCN) Counsel at the employment tribunal, said: “I am clearly delighted with the outcome. I was confident that the evidence put forward demonstrated a pattern in discriminatory behaviours due to the colour of my skin.   “It sadly proves that institutional racism is still present in organisations, despite the efforts to make it more inclusive for people of all races and backgrounds.  Michelle has a long reputation of raising issues of social injustices within nursing platforms to amplify the unheard voices of staff and patients.    She continued: “I want this outcome to send a strong message to anyone facing similar behaviour in the workplace, particularly due to race, to have the courage to speak up.  Little too often does this behaviour just become the ‘norm’ for many colleagues, it needs to be challenged more often and organisations need to work towards a no tolerance policy where discriminatory attitudes, behaviour and racism is concerned.  “I thank the Royal College of Nursing for pursuing this case on my behalf and for supporting me throughout it.  I am hopeful to now put this stressful and upsetting period of my life behind me and hope this landmark outcome leaves a legacy for change for staff experiencing race discrimination.  I now wish to take time to heal and recover.” Estephanie Dunn, Regional Director for the RCN in the North West, said: “Far too few of these cases reach this point and I am proud of the regional legal team who have progressed and fought this case on behalf of both Ms Cox and of other BME colleagues who are too afraid to speak up.   “I was personally shocked to hear some of the evidence in the case and the treatment Ms Cox has faced from a flagship publicly funded employer who should be setting standards. 

“We hope this ruling now drives change and provides greater accountability for poor behaviours and actions. We need more people like Ms Cox to speak up and challenge appalling discriminatory behaviour that is happening every day to BME colleagues who are ultimately stunted in or lose their career paths as a result.” Ferguson Doyle, Senior Legal Officer and Solicitor for the RCN in the North West who supported Ms Cox’s case, added: “This is a landmark case in many ways, especially given that the employer’s mishandling of Michelle’s grievance and appeal were found to be acts of discrimination in themselves.   In this case the evidence was clear and Ms Cox had an extremely credible case against her employer.   “It is also credit to Judge Batten who has taken the time to fully examine and document the findings for each piece of evidence and determine this damning verdict against NHSE&I.  Reading the final judgement just demonstrates the seriousness of the issues and discrimination Ms Cox faced in the workplace and it is clear she has been extremely let down by her employer.”

Page last updated - 22/02/2023

Your Spaces

• RCNi Profile
• Steward Portal
• RCN Foundation
• RCN Library
• RCN Starting Out

Work & Venue

• RCNi Nursing Jobs
• Work for the RCN
• RCN Working with us

Further Info

• Manage Cookie Preferences
• Modern slavery statement
• Accessibility
• Press office

Connect with us:

© 2024 Royal College of Nursing

At Reach and across our entities we and our partners use information collected through cookies and other identifiers from your device to improve experience on our site, analyse how it is used and to show personalised advertising. You can opt out of the sale or sharing of your data, at any time clicking the "Do Not Sell or Share my Data" button at the bottom of the webpage. Please note that your preferences are browser specific. Use of our website and any of our services represents your acceptance of the use of cookies and consent to the practices described in our Privacy Notice and Cookie Notice .

Liverpool nurse wins landmark racial discrimination case

NHS England Improvement lost a employment tribunal case against a senior black nurse on grounds of race discrimination and whistleblowing

A Liverpool nurse has won a landmark case against the NHS England Improvement after a judge heard evidence that her employer treated her unfavourably because of her race.

Michelle Cox from Liverpool was employed by NHS&I Commissioning as a Continuing Healthcare Manager - based in Manchester - from May 2017. She describes herself as a black woman and was the only black nurse in the employer’s North region in 2018, when she was appointed as the regional lead to the Chief Nursing Officers’ Black Minority Ethnic Strategic Advisory Group.

At an employment tribunal in Manchester at the end of 2022, the tribunal heard evidence that between 2019 and 2021, Ms Cox, had faced discrimination, harassment and victimisation from her employer and her whistleblowing claims had not been upheld after she raised a grievance and appeal. This week the tribunal unanimously found in her favour.

READ MORE: Couple stuck in deep freeze because they can't top up gas money

The tribunal heard how Ms Cox faced direct discrimination by her manager Gill Paxton on several occasions, including how she was purposely excluded from team events, including at least two team away-days after they were arranged for occasions she couldn’t attend. One such event was scheduled for a time she was due to be at the Chief Nurses Office’s Black Minority Ethnic conference.

On another occasion, Ms Cox was not informed that a team member, junior to herself, had been promoted and was 'acting up’ despite a thorough, fair and proper recruitment process not being followed. This was also contrary to anti-discrimination recruitment practices. Her manager then excluded her from recruiting to new senior posts in her team.

The tribunal heard that Ms Cox raised concerns about work practices throughout her employment and was dismissed or discredited by her manager. On one occasion, an issue was raised by Ms Cox regarding Independent Review Panels, on which her team members were sitting. Ms Cox pointed out that this was a breach of independence and legal obligations, but her manager dismissed her claim and told her she ‘had cleared it with legal’. The tribunal was no evidence to suggest this had ever happened.

The final insult for Ms Cox was when confidential information about her health was discussed by her manager with a team member during which she encouraged the team member to report concerns she had about Ms Cox.

Having raised an internal grievance regarding the process, the tribunal heard evidence that the employer failed to uphold her grievance despite the underlying findings made. Her evidence regarding discrimination at her grievance, which also included evidence of another BME employee only getting an equivalent pay uplift after it was highlighted her white counterpart had received the same, was dismissed in the internal processes.

Ms Cox's role on the Chief Nurse Black Minority Ethnic Strategic Advisory Group was to make sure issues impacting on BME staff, and particularly BME nurses, were raised. She questioned how she could fulfil this role when the issues she was speaking publicly about were happening to her.

The tribunal found that Ms Cox was the victim of a "hostile and humiliating environment," adding that Ms Cox "reasonably perceived that she was suffering poor treatment amounting to harassment because of race."

The unanimous judgement of the tribunal was that Ms Cox's complaints of race discrimination and whistleblowing detriment succeeded.

Ms Cox, who was represented by the Royal College of Nursing’s (RCN) Counsel at the employment tribunal, said: “I am clearly delighted with the outcome. I was confident that the evidence put forward demonstrated a pattern in discriminatory behaviours due to the colour of my skin.

“It sadly proves that institutional racism is still present in organisations, despite the efforts to make it more inclusive for people of all races and backgrounds.

“I want this outcome to send a strong message to anyone facing similar behaviour in the workplace particularly due to race, to have the courage to speak up. Little too often does this behaviour just become the ‘norm’ for many colleagues, it needs to be challenged more often and organisations need to work towards a no tolerance policy where discriminatory attitudes, behaviour and racism is concerned.

“I thank the Royal College of Nursing for pursuing this case on my behalf and for supporting me throughout it. I am hopeful to now put this stressful and upsetting period of my life behind me and hope this landmark outcome leaves a legacy for change for staff experiencing race discrimination. I now wish to take time to heal and recover.”

Estephanie Dunn, Regional Director for the RCN in the North West, said: “Few too many of these cases reach this point and I am proud of the regional legal team who have progressed and fought this case on both behalf of Ms Cox and on behalf of other BME colleagues who are too afraid to speak up.

“I was personally shocked to hear some of the evidence in the case and the treatment Ms Cox has faced from what should be, a from a flagship, publicly funded employer who should be setting standards.

“We hope this ruling now drives change and provides greater accountability for poor behaviours and actions. We need more people like Ms Cox to speak up and challenge appalling discriminatory behaviour that is happening every day to BME colleagues who are ultimately stunted in or lose their career paths as a result.”

Ferguson Doyle, Senior Legal Officer and Solicitor for the RCN in the North West who supported Ms Cox’s case, added: “This is a landmark case in many ways in many ways especially given that the employer’s mishandling of Michelle’s grievance and appeal was found to be acts of discrimination in themselves. In this case the evidence was clear and Ms Cox had an extremely credible case against her employer.

“It is also credit to Judge Batten who has taken the time to fully examine and document the findings for each piece of evidence and determine this damning verdict against NHSE&I. Reading the final judgement just demonstrates the seriousness of the issues and discrimination Ms Cox faced in the workplace and it is clear she has been extremely let down by her employer.”

Mum buying 100 Lidl cucumbers 'barred' after manager runs over

'Wolf of Old Hall Street' took his own life after being unable to escape money troubles

Couple stuck in deep freeze because they can't top up gas money

'Photie Man' captured characters from 80s and 90s Liverpool

King's College London

19 April 2023

More than a third of people from minority groups in the UK have experienced racist assaults, survey finds

Racism and racial discrimination in the UK are insidiousness and persistent, according to new research co-produced by King’s.

A major new survey of racism and ethnic inequalities, the Evidence for Equality National Survey (EVENS) , reveals the extent of racism and racial discrimination experienced by people from ethnic and religious minority groups in Britain.

The racism reported by the survey’s respondents took different forms – physical, verbal or damage to property – and happened in all areas of life including education, work and when looking for housing.

Overall, almost one in six respondents had experienced a racially motivated physical assault, but over a third of people identifying as Gypsy/Traveller, Roma or Other Black reported that they had been physically assaulted because of their ethnicity, race, colour, or religion.

More than a quarter had been verbally abused or insulted because of their ethnicity, race, colour or religion, and 17% reported experiencing damage to their personal property. Nearly a third reported racial discrimination in education and employment, and nearly a fifth reported racial discrimination when looking for housing.

Co-produced by King’s, the University of Manchester and the University of St Andrews, the survey was carried out by the Centre on the Dynamics of Ethnicity (CoDE) . It is the largest and most comprehensive survey for over 25 years to document the lives of ethnic and religious minorities in the UK and offers fresh insights into their experiences during the pandemic too.

“The EVENS survey allows us to obtain a deeper understanding of the insidiousness and persistence of racial discrimination in the UK,” said Professor Laia Bécares, Professor of Social Science and Health in the Department of Global Health & Social Medicine .  

We clearly document that there is a high level of racism in the UK which permeates all aspects of people’s everyday lives and impacts their health, wellbeing, and socioeconomic circumstances. Professor Laia Bécares, Professor of Social Science and Health

Dr Dharmi Kapadia, University of Manchester, said: “[…] tackling racism is not just a case of merely removing ‘bad apples’ from workplaces and institutions such as the Metropolitan Police – we need to seriously transform the policies and procedures that enable racist discrimination to persist, in order to ensure better outcome and life chances for ethnic and religious minority people.”

Data collection took place between February and November 2021, when people were asked about their experiences before the pandemic, and separately, about their experiences since the beginning of the pandemic.

EVENS has a sample of 14,200 participants, of whom 9,700 identify as members of ethnic and religious minority groups, uniquely allowing comparative analyses of their experiences. Other findings include:

• Racial discrimination in education was reported by around half of those who identified as Roma, Any Other Black, Black Caribbean and Mixed White and Caribbean, with 44% of Gypsy/Traveller respondents saying the same.
• Some ethnic groups also reported high rates of discrimination from the police, including over a third of people from the Black Caribbean, Any Other Black, Roma and Gypsy/Traveller groups.
• Between 40-50% of people from Black Caribbean, Any Other Black, and White and Black Caribbean groups reported facing racist abuse while out shopping, in parks, cafes or restaurants or on public transport.
• Almost one in six people also experienced racial discrimination from their neighbours, but this rose to one in two Other Black people and one in three Gypsy/Traveller people.
• During the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic, Chinese, Other Asian and Eastern European people reported an increase in experiences of racial discrimination relative to other ethnic minority groups, and some ethnic groups reported increased policing during the first year of the pandemic – one in three Gypsy/Traveller people, and one in five Roma and Chinese people had been stopped by the police in this period.

EVENS was supported by the Economics and Social Research Council (ES/V013475/1 and ES/ W000849/1). It was produced in partnership with 13 voluntary, community and social enterprise groups.

Results from EVENS are available in a new book Racism and Inequality in a Time of Crisis: Findings from the Evidence for Equality National Survey available in print, e-book and free pdf. The full dataset will be made available in May.

The book of the survey findings and the full dataset cover a wide range of topics including housing, employment, identity and politics, health and socioeconomic circumstances.

In this story

Professor Laia Becares

Professor of Social Science and Health

Related departments

• Department of Global Health & Social Medicine
• School of Global Affairs
• Faculty of Social Science & Public Policy