Black barrister hit with £20,000 bill after losing employer race claim
A black barrister has been told to stump up more than £20,000 in legal bills after losing a race claim against her employer who told her that her work was 'not vanilla enough'.Jeniffer Campbell had alleged her manager Alexandra Jacobs racially discriminated against her by using the phrase to refer to her writing, suggesting that it be 'safer and blander'.A tribunal held in East London heard that Ms Campbell worked for Waltham Forest London Borough Council as a contract lawyer, joining via an agency in December 2018.She was sacked in July 2020 due to the council having too many agency staff, and 'long standing issues with her performance, such as client complaints'.Ms Campbell claimed that in August 2019 Ms Jacobs told her she was 'not vanilla enough'.But the tribunal found Ms Jacobs had only used the word 'vanilla' in relation to her writing, and the claim was therefore dismissed.Employment Judge Sophie Park said: 'The suggestion that it was related to race was unfounded.'We concluded it was probably an attempt to create an incident that could be painted as race related to support the remainder of the claimant's case, rather than a genuine complaint.' Jeniffer Campbell (pictured) claimed it was racial discrimination for her female boss to call her 'glamorous' and refer to her work not being 'vanilla enough' Ms Campbell (pictured) sued Waltham Forest London Borough Council - where she worked as a contract lawyer - for race harassment and race discriminationRead More Calling a woman 'glamorous' at work risks undermining or belittling them, tribunal rules as beauty queen lawyer loses racial discrimination claim This claim was found to be 'unreasonable'.Ms Campbell, a beauty pageant winning lawyer, also complained when her boss called her 'glamorous' and alleged that too was racist.But the tribunal ruled that there was no evidence this was related to her race.She will now have to pay 'substantially' more than £20,000 to her former employer in legal bills.The exact amount will be decided at a later date, once the cost of defending her unreasonable claims and additional costs related to her conduct have been determined.The tribunal heard Ms Jacobs was showing a new colleague around the office and when introducing Ms Campbell, she said the lawyer and model was the 'glamour corner'.The tribunal said: 'Ms Campbell was upset by what had happened. This is not disputed.'She told Ms Jacobs the same day that she found it offensive being introduced that way rather than as a barrister or lawyer.'Ms Jacob's evidence was she was mortified and apologetic.'Colleagues said Ms Campbell took great care of her appearance, would do her hair and make up every day, and it was heard Ms Jacobs had previously complimented her. Ms Campbell (pictured) failed in her claims of race discrimination, harassment, and victimisationThe tribunal found that it was reasonable for Ms Campbell to bring the claim because 'commenting about [her] appearance could amount to harassment'.Employment Judge Park said: 'In a business context we have concluded that being described as glamorous is potentially inappropriate.'Looked at objectively, it could be taken as undermining or belittling the person being described, making them seem less serious and professional.'However, the tribunal decided that there was no 'evidence to support a claim that it was direct race discrimination'.Employment Judge Park said: 'There is nothing inherent in being described as glamorous that is related to race.'Ms Campbell made a number of other claims, and the tribunal found that it was 'unreasonable' for her to pursue some of them given they had 'no reasonable prospects of success'.This included claiming that her work had been publicly criticised in emails which the tribunal said were in fact 'unremarkable professional emails from a supervisor to a person they managed'.Her conduct when bringing the claim was also criticised by the tribunal, which noted the fact that she is a barrister.This meant she should have known to 'limit the scope of the claims she pursued to those which were properly arguable'.Employment Judge Park said: 'The nature of [Ms Campbell]'s conduct means that it was inevitable that [her employers] would incur additional costs.'[Ms Campbell] frequently sent very lengthy applications that would have to be read carefully and responded to.'What should be straightforward tasks, such as agreeing the bundle, became overcomplicated involving excessive correspondence, because [Ms Campbell] did not act in a cooperative manner.'Dealing with all the correspondence and applications would take time, and caused [her employers] to incur additional unnecessary costs.'There were also multiple preliminary hearings.'Had [Ms Campbell] acted more cooperatively, particularly in relation to agreeing the list of issues and disclosure, at least one of those could have been avoided.'The tribunal found that it wasn't unreasonable for Ms Campbell to pursue her case as a whole.However, it said the level of costs awarded to her former employer should reflect the additional costs it had incurred for 'the work involved in defending the claims which had no reasonable prospects of success, as set out above; and the additional costs incurred as a result of the claimant's unreasonable conduct in the way she pursued the case, as set out above.'Ms Campbell's claims of race discrimination, harassment on the grounds of race and victimisation were all dismissed.
