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.
From gender and age, to race and disability, discrimination takes many forms.
Whether a badly-judged ‘joke’ or downright malicious bullying, discriminatory behaviour is never anything but harmful to the individual and the culture of a workplace. It can result in financial consequences, too – as the cases below demonstrate. On top of that, there's the reputational damage that comes with it, which can lead to lost customer confidence and business and difficulty attracting and retaining talented employees.
So why is it that two in five UK adults have faced discrimination in the workplace? For instance, more than half (53%) of young women faced discrimination at work or applying for a job in 2024, while disability discrimination claims also jumped by 30% from 2022-24.
Fortunately, more and more people are beginning to take a stand against it and are challenging employers and entire institutions in court or employment tribunals.Of the many discrimination cases appearing before judges and investigators in the UK, some truly stand out more than others - demonstrating that it can happen to anyone in any organisation. We examine some of the most serious, high-profile cases seen in recent years.
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!
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.
You’d think 40 years’ experience in law would be highly regarded, but Martin Scott, a 63-year-old solicitor, was forced out of Leeds law firm Walker Morris in 2023 because of his age.
The firm had a policy that anyone aged 60+ would have to reapply to stay on as a partner. Martin had already made it through one round in 2020, but after a year, he was accused of poor behaviour, being disruptive and not collaborating, although he thought his financial performance should speak for itself.
When reapplying in 2023, his application was refused. A tribunal panel in Leeds found this unlawful because employees aged under 60 would not have had to go through the same process and that making partners retire wasn’t needed for ‘workforce and succession planning’.
Administrator Limara Davies took action against her former employer, Active 8 Managed Technologies after she handed in her resignation in 2022. Limara claimed she had been unfairly dismissed and faced maternity, pregnancy and sex discrimination.
Limara found out she was pregnant, but no risk assessment was completed. Doctors had advised her to work remotely during her pregnancy because of Covid-19-related risks – but her employers refused.
Following her return from maternity leave, she requested flexible working, but this was denied, and no other solution was offered. An employment tribunal awarded in her favour.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Whether it’s positive discrimination, unconscious bias or a blatant disrespect to protected characteristics, discrimination in any form can make employees feel uncomfortable – and it’s illegal.
Learn more about the Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion (DEI) courses we offer in our Compliance Essentials library.