This article applies to England and Wales.
Evidence in race, sex and age discrimination judgments
In brief: Race, sex and age discrimination judgments carry less employer paperwork than the population and no distinctive evidence of their own. In substantial judgments from England and Wales, 2023–25, the contract of employment is mentioned in 29–42% and written warnings in 8–15%. WhatsApp rose 12 to 14 points in each; diaries in sex discrimination cases halved to 6%.
Last updated: September 2026
By Yerty | Analysis of published Employment Tribunal decisions, 2017 to 2025. Part of the evidence by claim type series.
Discrimination claims other than disability are argued on what was said and done, and the table reflects it: the documents that dominate other claim types are thinner here, and no document takes their place.
This piece takes three columns of Yerty's evidence by claim type analysis together: race discrimination (234 judgments in 2017–19, 253 in 2023–25), sex discrimination (175, 148) and age discrimination (87, 92). Disability discrimination has its own piece, because its evidence profile is unlike these three. Religion or belief (45 and 48 judgments) and pregnancy and maternity (99 and 50) are too small to report separately.
Summary
- Less paperwork, not different paperwork. The contract of employment is mentioned in 34% of race, 42% of sex and 29% of age discrimination judgments (population 50%). Written warnings 15%, 8% and 11%. Investigation reports 11%, 7%, 5%.
- Witness statements are at or above the population. 72%, 69% and 66% against 67%.
- WhatsApp rose in all three: race 3% to 16%, sex 7% to 19%, age 2% to 16%.
- Diaries fell in sex discrimination cases from 13% to 6%, and photographs from 9% to 4% in race cases.
- Payslips rose from 3–5% to 10% in all three, which reflects equal-pay and wages claims running alongside rather than the discrimination claim itself.
Evidence in race, sex and age discrimination judgments
Share of judgments that mention each type of evidence at least once. The final column is every judgment in the population, for comparison. 234, 175 and 87 judgments in 2017–19 and 253, 148 and 92 in 2023–25.
Evidence mentioned in race discrimination judgments · share of judgments, ■ 2017–19 (n 234) → ■ 2023–25 (n 253) · ○ all cases 2023–25
Sorted by change. Rows under 5% in both periods are omitted; the full figures are in the table below. A mention is not reliance.
Evidence mentioned in sex discrimination judgments · share of judgments, ■ 2017–19 (n 175) → ■ 2023–25 (n 148) · ○ all cases 2023–25
Sorted by change. Rows under 5% in both periods are omitted; the full figures are in the table below. A mention is not reliance.
Evidence mentioned in age discrimination judgments · share of judgments, ■ 2017–19 (n 87) → ■ 2023–25 (n 92) · ○ all cases 2023–25
Sorted by change. Rows under 5% in both periods are omitted; the full figures are in the table below. A mention is not reliance.
| Evidence | Race discrimination 2017–19 | Sex discrimination 2017–19 | Age discrimination 2017–19 | Race discrimination 2023–25 | Sex discrimination 2023–25 | Age discrimination 2023–25 | All cases 2023–25 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Witness evidence | |||||||
| Witness statement | 67% | 65% | 59% | 72% | 69% | 66% | 67% |
| Employer documents | |||||||
| Contract of employment | 35% | 42% | 43% | 34% | 42% | 29% | 50% |
| Written warning | 18% | 10% | 18% | 15% | 8% | 11% | 13% |
| Final written warning | 13% | 7% | 13% | 11% | 5% | 9% | 10% |
| Dismissal letter | 12% | 10% | 14% | 9% | 10% | 12% | 11% |
| Job description | 13% | 19% | 18% | 10% | 14% | 15% | 11% |
| Disciplinary policy | 12% | 5% | 5% | 11% | 6% | 5% | 11% |
| Investigation report | 13% | 7% | 9% | 11% | 7% | 5% | 10% |
| Resignation letter | 7% | 7% | 7% | 4% | 7% | 5% | 7% |
| Appeal letter | 9% | 2% | 1% | 7% | 6% | 9% | 6% |
| Employee handbook | 3% | 2% | 1% | 4% | 5% | 2% | 4% |
| Grievance letter | 7% | 7% | 6% | 7% | 2% | 1% | 4% |
| Personnel file | 3% | 1% | 5% | 2% | 1% | 3% | 2% |
| Pay and time paperwork | |||||||
| Payslips | 4% | 5% | 3% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 11% |
| Rota | 10% | 13% | 7% | 11% | 10% | 11% | 10% |
| P45 | 3% | 11% | 6% | 3% | 7% | 4% | 5% |
| Timesheets | 3% | 1% | 3% | 1% | 7% | 1% | 5% |
| Bank statements | 0% | 1% | 0% | 2% | 3% | 0% | 3% |
| Medical evidence | |||||||
| Occupational health | 15% | 13% | 13% | 13% | 10% | 16% | 17% |
| Fit note | 5% | 6% | 5% | 7% | 9% | 8% | 9% |
| Medical records | 6% | 5% | 2% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% |
| Impact statement | 2% | 2% | 1% | 2% | 3% | 3% | 4% |
| Medical report | 3% | 1% | 2% | 4% | 3% | 2% | 2% |
| Notes made at the time | |||||||
| Diary | 6% | 13% | 6% | 6% | 6% | 4% | 5% |
| Minutes of the meeting | 3% | 2% | 5% | 3% | 2% | 1% | 4% |
| Contemporaneous notes | 3% | 2% | 1% | 2% | 2% | 3% | 2% |
| Incident report | 3% | 1% | 2% | 1% | 0% | 1% | 2% |
| File note | 3% | 2% | 2% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 1% |
| Messages and images | |||||||
| 3% | 7% | 2% | 16% | 19% | 16% | 16% | |
| Text messages | 6% | 10% | 5% | 8% | 6% | 5% | 7% |
| Social media | 2% | 4% | 2% | 6% | 7% | 2% | 5% |
| Photographs | 9% | 7% | 7% | 4% | 3% | 4% | 5% |
| Screenshots | 1% | 1% | 0% | 2% | 5% | 3% | 3% |
| Microsoft Teams | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 2% | 1% | 2% |
| Voicemail | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 3% | 3% | 2% |
| Phone records | 2% | 1% | 0% | 1% | 2% | 0% | 1% |
n: Race discrimination 234 / 253; Sex discrimination 175 / 148; Age discrimination 87 / 92; all cases 2,029 / 1,738. A judgment is counted under every claim type among its claims.
Why the paperwork is thinner
A direct discrimination claim under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 asks whether the claimant was treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic, and a harassment claim under section 26 asks whether conduct related to it had a particular effect. Neither turns on a document in the way a wages claim turns on the contract or an unfair dismissal claim on the disciplinary file, and the table shows it. The contract of employment is mentioned in 29–42% of these judgments against 50% of all judgments. Disciplinary policies (5–11%), investigation reports (5–11%) and dismissal letters (9–12%) are all at or below the population rate.
The age column is the thinnest: the contract of employment fell from 43% to 29% of age discrimination judgments, and written warnings from 18% to 11%. With 87 and 92 judgments those figures carry more noise than the other columns.
What the judgments describe instead
Witness statements are mentioned in 72% of race, 69% of sex and 66% of age discrimination judgments, at or above the population's 67%. Grievance letters are highest in the race column, at 7% against 4% in the population, in both periods.
Messages moved the same way as everywhere else. WhatsApp rose from 3% to 16% in race judgments, 7% to 19% in sex judgments and 2% to 16% in age judgments. Social media is slightly above the population in the sex column (7%) and race column (6%). Screenshots reached 5% in sex discrimination judgments, the highest rate of any claim type.
Two older forms of contemporaneous evidence fell. Diaries went from 13% to 6% of sex discrimination judgments, and photographs from 9% to 4% of race judgments. As in the disability column, the running account of incidents that used to be a diary is now more often a message thread.
Pay paperwork
Payslips rose from 3–5% to 10% in all three columns. That is not evidence of the discrimination claim; it is the equal-pay, wages and notice claims that commonly travel with it, and the rise matches the population's. Rotas (10–11%) and P45s (3–7%) are at population rates.
Method and limits
Population and matching are those of the hub analysis: single-claimant merits decisions with written reasons, England and Wales, one judgment per case, 20,000 to 60,000 characters. Each figure is the share of judgments containing the exact phrase at least once. A judgment is counted under a claim type if that claim type is among its claims, so a judgment can appear in several claim-type columns and the columns do not sum to the population. A mention is not reliance: a judgment that rejected a document or noted its absence counts the same as one that accepted it. No category totals are given.
Frequently asked questions
What evidence appears most often in race discrimination judgments?
In substantial judgments from 2023–25: witness statements (72%), the contract of employment (34%), WhatsApp (16%), written warnings (15%), occupational health (13%), investigation reports (11%) and disciplinary policies (11%). Figures are England and Wales, single-claimant, one judgment per case, and count judgments that mention the evidence at least once.
Is there evidence specific to discrimination claims?
Not in the documents judgments describe. Race, sex and age discrimination judgments carry less employer paperwork than the population and no document is more common in them than elsewhere, apart from grievance letters in race cases (7% against 4%). Disability discrimination is different: medical evidence dominates it.
How often is WhatsApp mentioned in discrimination cases?
In 16% of race, 19% of sex and 16% of age discrimination judgments from 2023–25, up from 3%, 7% and 2% in 2017–19. Screenshots reached 5% in sex discrimination judgments, the highest of any claim type. Text messages and voicemail did not move.
Have diaries become less common in discrimination cases?
Yes. Diaries are mentioned in 6% of substantial sex discrimination judgments in 2023–25, down from 13%, and in 6% of race judgments, unchanged. The fall in the sex column is among the largest in the analysis; the disability column shows the same pattern (12% to 3%).
Why are payslips mentioned in discrimination judgments?
Because wages, equal-pay and notice claims often run alongside. Payslips rose from 3–5% to 10% in race, sex and age discrimination judgments between 2017–19 and 2023–25, matching the rise in the population. The figure reflects the accompanying money claims rather than the discrimination claim itself.
Does a document being mentioned mean the tribunal relied on it?
No. The counts include judgments that rejected a document, gave it little weight or noted that it was missing. The figures describe what judgments discuss, not what decided the case, and a discrimination judgment can turn on oral evidence with no document at all.
Analyse the data
These judgments turn on witness evidence more than documents. Query evidence terms by claim type and year.
Intelligence Hub →Manage your evidence
Discrimination claims are won on the surrounding facts. Keep a dated note of what was said, when and who was there.
Case Hub →Sources
Analysis of published Employment Tribunal decisions, 2017 to 2025, drawn from the public register on GOV.UK under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Population as stated in the hub analysis; 234, 175 and 87 judgments with a race, sex and age discrimination claim in 2017–19 and 253, 148 and 92 in 2023–25.
Related reading: what evidence do I need for a discrimination claim, what evidence tribunal judgments describe, 2017 to 2025, and tribunal evidence is moving from paper to screen.
Other pieces in this series: unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, wages and working time, whistleblowing, redundancy.