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

Pub
  • 27 April 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

Quarterly Insights: Key Corporate & Commercial Topics – Q2 2026

Join Stuart Mullins and Emma Docking as they explore key corporate and commercial topics, including SME growth and exit strategies for 2026, EMI schemes for employee incentives, and the importance of drag along and tag along rights.

art
  • 22 April 2026
  • Commercial Real Estate

Historic rent reviews: A warning for tenants

We have been asked whether a landlord is able to operate historic rent reviews. 

art
  • 14 April 2026
  • Employment

Updates to Vento Bands 2026: Injury to feelings awards

For discrimination and detriment cases, compensation can also cover non-financial losses, which, in most cases, will include an injury to feelings award.

art
  • 13 April 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Renters’ Rights Act coming into force on 1 May 2026

The long-awaited Renters’ Rights Act 2025 (RRA) comes into force on 1 May 2026, bringing the biggest changes to the private rental sector since the 1980s. So what do landlords need to know about what is changing?

art
  • 13 April 2026
  • Immigration

Sponsor Licence Compliance in 2026: Increased Scrutiny, Increased Risk – Time to Audit

The Home Office’s latest updates to sponsor guidance in March 2026, alongside broader immigration rule changes introduced this year, signal a decisive shift in the UK’s sponsorship regime.

art
  • 10 April 2026
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Is your tech discriminatory?

Employers are increasingly reliant on technology to assist with all kinds of functions – from strengthening security to streamlining recruitment processes.