What is your resting face like? It might not seem like an issue, but it definitely was in the case of Miss S Moody v London Borough of Southwark [2023], in which the Employment Appeals Tribunal determined whether Miss Moody had been racially discriminated against during her employment.

Miss Moody was employed by Dog Kennel Hill Primary School in November 2013 as a Higher Level Teaching Assistant. Employed under the London Borough of Southwark, she worked at the school for approximately nine years before her dismissal in December 2022.

Her role involved supporting teachers in the classroom, supervising pupils, and assisting with educational delivery and pupil welfare. During her employment, difficulties gradually developed between Miss Moody and members of school management. Concerns were raised regarding her conduct, communication style, and interactions with colleagues. Miss Moody alleged that management increasingly perceived her as aggressive, confrontational, or intimidating and that these perceptions were influenced by racial stereotypes directed at Black women. She contended that ordinary workplace disagreements or expressions of concern were interpreted more negatively because of her race.

She also alleged that she made internal complaints about racism and unfair treatment during the course of her employment. According to Miss Moody, instead of properly addressing her concerns, management became increasingly hostile toward her. She argued that after raising complaints of discrimination, she experienced further detrimental treatment and escalating disciplinary action. The relationship broke down, and ultimately her employment was terminated in December 2022.

Miss Moody therefore brought claims to the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, harassment and victimisation.

The ET dealt with several procedural and substantive issues throughout the proceedings. One of the principal preliminary issues concerned whether allegations extending back several years were out of time under the Equality Act 2010. The London Borough of Southwark argued that the allegations were unrelated incidents that could not properly be treated as a continuing act of discrimination. Employment Judge Wilson rejected attempts to strike out substantial portions of the case at the preliminary stage. The ET emphasised that discrimination claims are highly fact-sensitive and that disputes concerning motive, perception, and workplace culture often require full evidential examination before proper findings can be made.

The ET concluded that there were genuine factual disputes regarding whether the incidents formed part of an ongoing pattern of discriminatory treatment and therefore allowed the claims to proceed.

Another procedural issue arose when the London Borough of Southwark failed to comply with an unless order, resulting in its response initially being struck out. However, the ET later granted relief from sanctions and reinstated the response, concluding that permanent strike-out would be disproportionate and contrary to the interests of justice.

At the substantive hearing, the ET reportedly upheld significant aspects of Sandra Moody’s claims, including race discrimination, harassment, and unfair dismissal. The ET accepted that perceptions of Sandra Moody as “angry” or intimidating reflected racial stereotyping and influenced the way management interpreted her conduct and behaviour. Those discriminatory assumptions were found to have affected disciplinary and managerial decisions taken against her.

A remedy hearing regarding compensation is set to follow.

For employers, this case underlines the need for fair, evidence-based management of conduct and performance concerns. Behavioural issues, including tone, attitude, or communication style, should be assessed consistently and objectively, with managers trained to recognise how unconscious bias and racial stereotyping can distort judgment. The case also shows the importance of dealing properly with discrimination complaints, as failure to do so may strengthen later claims of victimisation or discriminatory treatment.

Employers should also note that older incidents may still be examined by a tribunal where they are said to form part of a continuing pattern of conduct, so historic complaints should not be dismissed simply because of age. The proceedings are a reminder that compliance with ET orders and deadlines is essential, as procedural failures can lead to sanctions, extra cost, and avoidable disruption.