An HMRC trainee has been awarded more than £16,500 after an employment tribunal found she was discriminated against because of her Armenian heritage, following remarks from her manager that a lost item from her handbag could be a "listening device".
The Edinburgh tribunal heard that the trainee, referred to as Ms X, is Armenian and speaks fluent English but with what was described as a "Russian accent", as Russian is her first language. During an induction session on her first day back at HMRC on 4 July 2022, a stud fell from the strap of her handbag. When she went to look for it, her line manager, referred to as DR, followed her and remarked that it could be a "listening device".
The tribunal found this comment amounted to direct race discrimination, ruling it "would not have been made to trainees who were not perceived to be Russian". Ms X told the tribunal she initially felt "irked" by the remark but was not "particularly upset" at the time, though she later came to view it as the start of a "pattern of racially motivated behaviour" as further incidents occurred.
Three days later, Ms X discovered her previous surname was visible on HMRC's intranet. She had changed her surname for safety reasons following a violent, racially motivated attack. When she asked for the record to be updated, DR questioned her directly about the risk, saying he did not see a threat and citing his 29 years of law enforcement experience. The tribunal described this questioning as "disturbing and unnecessary" and found DR had doubted her concerns because the threat to her safety was related to her ethnicity. Her former surname was removed on 3 August 2022 after she contacted HR.
The tribunal also examined a dispute over whether Ms X should repeat her probation period, despite having successfully completed probation during an earlier period of employment with HMRC between January 2019 and January 2020. DR maintained there was insufficient evidence she had completed it, despite Ms X providing confirmation. The panel heard that two trainees of different ethnicities in similar circumstances were not required to repeat probation, and it described the tone of DR's emails to Ms X as "unnecessarily patronising/hostile".
A further dispute arose from a one-to-one meeting on 19 August 2022, during which Ms X discussed her previous research and analysis experience, her knowledge of Europe and her Russian language skills, suggesting these could make her suited to customs and international trade work. DR subsequently produced a six-page account of the meeting containing 91 numbered paragraphs, purporting to record the conversation almost verbatim. His account attributed comments to Ms X including that the "youngest and prettiest girl gets the best job" and that she had said: "I could get back at Russia for killing my family."
Ms X disputed the accuracy of these notes, telling DR on 30 August that they did not reflect what had been said. Two days later, DR instigated disciplinary proceedings against her based on the comments he said she had made. Ms X was subsequently issued with a 12-month written warning, later reduced to six months on appeal.
Employment judge Sangster and the panel upheld Ms X's claims of direct and indirect race discrimination. On the listening device remark, the tribunal preferred Ms X's account and found its racial basis was "inherent in the act itself". It also preferred her version of events regarding the one-to-one meeting, finding that DR could not have taken the volume of near-verbatim handwritten notes he claimed while maintaining the conversation, stating this "undermined his position".
The panel rejected DR's account that Ms X had accused those allocating jobs of choosing trainees based on age and attractiveness, finding instead that she had been giving "hypothetical examples" and was "simply trying to obtain further details" about the allocation process. It concluded that the serious comments attributed to her had not been made and that DR had falsely accused her of misconduct.
The tribunal noted that the allegations arose from a meeting DR had "arranged/engineered" so that nobody else was present, despite Ms X asking to be accompanied, with minutes not provided until ten days later. DR "simply denied" falsely accusing Ms X and offered no explanation for his actions, the tribunal said, concluding she had been treated less favourably because of her race.
Ms X was awarded £14,000 for injury to feelings, plus £2,506 in interest, bringing her total award to £16,506. Several other complaints of discrimination and harassment she raised were dismissed by the tribunal.
An HMRC spokesperson said the organisation had taken the findings seriously and was committed to providing a workplace where everyone is treated with respect. "We've strengthened our policies, reporting routes and support for staff to ensure colleagues feel confident raising concerns and know they will be listened to, with the right action taken in response – including disciplinary action," they added.
