Search

How can we help?

Icon

Little white lies: not giving the true reasons for dismissal pointed to discrimination

This week, in Base Childrenswear v Otshudi, the Court of Appeal confirmed that not being honest about the reason for dismissal can show that the employer has a discrimination case to answer.

Ms Otshudi, a photographer of black African ethnicity, had less than two years’ service and was dismissed. She was told that the reason was redundancy but no process had been followed. She brought a claim that her dismissal was unlawful harassment related to her race. The employer defended the claim on the basis that it was a genuine redundancy. Faced with disclosure, it amended its defence to say the real reason was that the dismissing manager, of white British ethnicity, had genuinely believed that Ms Otshudi was intending to steal five items of clothing but had not wanted to confront her about this.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the ET and EAT that the decision to dismiss was tainted with race discrimination: the manager had rushed to a conclusion that the Claimant was intending to steal on flimsy evidence which he realised would not support a dismissal on gross misconduct grounds.

From this, and the fact that the business had lied about the reason for dismissal, the Court of Appeal decided that the tribunal had been entitled to find that part of the manager’s reasons for acting this way was stereotypical prejudice based on the employee’s race, even if this was unconscious on his part.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the ET and EAT that the decision to dismiss was tainted with race discrimination.

This case shows the danger of trying to take shortcuts in disciplinary matters. Employers need to be honest with themselves about why they prefer not to give the real reason for dismissal. It should always be a red flag to HR professionals if this is because the business wants to avoid carrying out a reasonable performance or conduct process.

For advice about carrying out disciplinaries or training regarding unconscious bias, contact our employment team.

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Author profile

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 15 September 2025
  • Immigration

Sharp rise in Sponsor Licence Revocations – What employers need to know

The Home Office has reported a record number of sponsor licence revocations over the past year, as part of its intensified efforts to crack down on abuse of the UK’s immigration system.

art
  • 10 September 2025
  • Commercial Real Estate

Trouble at the Table: The Challenges Facing the UK Hospitality Sector in the run up to Christmas 2025

The UK hospitality sector, long celebrated for its vibrancy and resilience, is facing a perfect storm of economic, operational, and structural challenges in 2025.

art
  • 09 September 2025
  • Commercial Real Estate

Le bail commercial anglais: quelques points essentiels à considérer

Typiquement, les baux commerciaux en Angleterre sont de court terme, d’une durée de 5 ou 10 ans, avec un loyer de marché et des ajustements du loyer périodiques en fonction de l’inflation ou d’autres facteurs. 

art
  • 09 September 2025
  • Corporate and M&A

The Failure to Prevent Fraud Offence – be prepared to avoid criminal liability

The failure to prevent fraud offence is a new corporate offence which has come into force on 1 September 2025.

art
  • 08 September 2025
  • Employment

Can employers still make changes to contracts after the Employment Rights Bill?

The short answer is yes but it will be much more difficult for employers following the introduction of the Employment Rights Bill because their ability to fairly dismiss employees who do not agree contractual changes is being restricted. 

art
  • 05 September 2025
  • Privacy and Data Protection

When Ignoring a DSAR Becomes a Criminal Offence

On 3 September 2025, Mr Jason Blake appeared at Beverley Magistrates Court and was fined for failing to respond to a data subject access request (DSAR).