Former administrator Gemma Spencer, who identifies as black British, won £35,109 in compensation after suing her employer, energy management specialist Schneider Electric, for race discrimination and harassment. The tribunal decision was published last Tuesday (15 April).
The company's managing director asked Spencer’s line manager what Spencer was smoking, after she was accused of inputting incorrect details into a quarterly report, the tribunal heard. It transpired that the data Spencer was using for the report was correct. Spencer wore her hair in braids at the time the comment was made.
The tribunal judged ruled that asking what Spencer was smoking was harassment relating to race.
The tribunal determined that: “It was a comment based on a stereotypical view of a black person with dreadlocks smoking drugs. It was unwanted conduct which violated the dignity of the claimant, and it was related on race. The claimant was offended. A reasonable person would be offended.”
Allegations of racism at work should be investigated impartially, emphasised founder of consultancy HR Hero for Hire, Shakil Butt.
He told HR magazine: “If an allegation of racism is made it should be investigated robustly, following internal policies and processes. If possible, [the matter should be investigated] by someone sufficiently impartial and with understanding of racism or lived experience, to ensure a fair and robust process.
“If the allegation is upheld then appropriate sanctions need to be applied and interventions taken. The focus is not necessarily about being punitive, rather it is about creating a culture of mutual respect, valuing everyone. Taking discrimination seriously and holding everyone to the same standard of accountability sends a clear message.”
Read more: Tribunal backs hotel receptionist's race discrimination claim
HR leaders and managers should remember that harassment does not need to be intentional, added Lauren McLaughlin, employment law partner at law firm Loch Associates Group.
Speaking to HR magazine, she said: “Staff should be made aware that a harassing comment does not require intention; it could be subconscious, a flippant remark, or described as 'banter'. Either way, they cannot be tolerated by your organisation. Racial harassment, if serious, could amount to a criminal offence too.
“HR leaders and managers should ensure their organisation has up-to-date policies, and effective training in place, in the context of those policies. This ensures the two are aligned, and that the training enforces those policies, by taking appropriate action and disciplining those who breach them.”
The tribunal also heard that on another occasion Spencer emailed her line manager asking for a meeting to discuss her career development.
During this meeting, the manager told Spencer that she was being put on a performance improvement plan due to poor performance. The manager failed to tell Spencer the reason for the meeting, and the tribunal determined that this was harassment related to Spencer’s race, and that the employer had determined to remove the claimant from the organisation based on her race.
Read more: Repeatedly misnaming employee is race harassment, tribunal rules
In order to measure performance fairly, HR leaders and managers should focus on specific and achievable goals, stated Helen Watson, partner at law firm Aaron and Partners.
She told HR magazine: “The evaluation process should rely on objective metrics whenever possible, supplemented by multiple data points such as self-assessments, peer feedback and project outcomes. Regular feedback throughout the performance cycle, not just during formal reviews, allows for continuous improvement.
“Performance management systems should be regularly reviewed and adapted to remain relevant and effective. Communicating performance goals fairly and effectively involves collaborative goal setting where possible, using clear and concise language, and providing the context and rationale behind the goals. Regular check-ins and open discussions should focus on development and support, encouraging employee input through active listening.”
For Nicola Brown, partner at law firm Mayo Wynne Baxter, one of the striking aspects of this case is how long it took to be resolved.
Speaking to HR magazine, she said: “The claimant brought her claim in February 2022; the main tribunal hearing took place in March and April 2024, and the decision on compensation was only reached earlier this month. The length of delay is unfortunately not unusual in employment tribunals, but it does highlight the problems in the system.
“To avoid being on the receiving end of claims like this, employers will want to ensure their staff are properly trained and are aware of the need to think carefully about the comments they make to colleagues, and that there are clear processes in place to follow when concerns are raised.”
