Workplace discrimination: keeping a chronology

A discrimination chronology should connect each alleged event with the protected characteristic, disadvantage or protected act relevant to the concern. Unfair treatment and unlawful discrimination overlap in some cases, but they are not interchangeable labels. ^[1]

Record events with their context

Note the date, decision-maker, words or action, witnesses and impact. Include the information available to the employer at the time. For a promotion or allocation decision, preserve the criteria and feedback rather than only the result.

If comparing treatment, identify a genuinely relevant comparator and explain similarities and differences. A colleague's different outcome may have another explanation; record what you know and what needs investigation.

Distinguish the legal concern

Explain whether the issue is direct treatment, a workplace rule affecting a group, disability-related disadvantage, harassment or retaliation for raising equality concerns. You do not need to select the perfect legal label before seeking advice, but concrete facts help identify the possible claim.

Retain relevant messages lawfully and avoid taking unrelated confidential files. Reasonable adjustments addresses disability barriers; harassment evidence focuses on unwanted conduct. Check deadlines for individual acts and any alleged continuing conduct without assuming a late event revives every earlier complaint.

Give each event its own evidential entry Use one entry for each decision, remark, rule or omission you want assessed. Include when it happened, when you learned of it and who was involved. These dates may differ, particularly for recruitment or promotion decisions. Record the source of your information and preserve the document where possible. Avoid grouping several months under a heading such as ongoing discrimination without identifying the events. A detailed chronology can show a pattern while still allowing each incident and its possible time limit to be considered separately.

Include the surrounding work context. For a promotion, record the role requirements, application, interview and feedback. For a shift allocation, identify the relevant availability and scheduling rule. For a performance decision, retain the stated targets and assessment period. The same outcome can have different explanations depending on these facts. Acas sets out the Equality Act framework for discrimination at work in Great Britain. ^[1] Your record should provide the facts needed to consider that framework rather than replacing them with repeated assertions that every unfavourable event was discriminatory.

Record the proposed connection carefully Explain which characteristic, disability-related consequence or protected act you believe is relevant. You do not need to settle the final legal label before seeking advice, but identify the connection you want investigated. If a manager made a remark referring to a characteristic, record the words and context accurately. If the concern arises from a rule applied to everyone, describe the rule and the disadvantage rather than searching only for an openly hostile comment. Different forms of discrimination can require different evidence and reasoning.

Note what the employer knew and when, especially where disability or a request for support is relevant. Keep the message, meeting note or report through which information was supplied and identify the recipient. Avoid assuming that every manager knew everything disclosed to occupational health or HR. Equally, knowledge may require assessment beyond an explicit written diagnosis. Give the adviser the actual communication history and workplace circumstances. This helps distinguish an evidential gap from an assumption about what someone must have understood at the time.

Use comparisons without taking unrelated records If another person's treatment is relevant, explain the similarities and differences you know. Consider role, duties, timing, decision-maker and any material circumstances. A colleague's favourable outcome may be useful evidence, but the comparison should not conceal a known difference that could explain it. Identify what is uncertain and what the employer could be asked to clarify. Do not take personnel files or access systems without authority to obtain comparative information. An adviser can consider appropriate requests and disclosure routes where necessary evidence is held by the employer.

Preserve messages with their dates and surrounding conversation so tone and meaning are not distorted by an isolated screenshot. Keep original files where lawfully available and distinguish your annotations from the source material. For spoken incidents, write a contemporaneous note of what you remember and identify possible witnesses. Do not claim a verbatim quotation if only the general meaning is recalled. A clear account of the limits of your memory is more reliable than later presenting reconstructed words as an exact transcript of a conversation.

Track reporting and later treatment separately Add grievance submissions, adjustment requests and employer responses as distinct entries. If treatment changes after you raise equality concerns, describe the new event and its timing rather than simply attaching it to the earlier allegation. The legal assessment of victimisation or another form of retaliation may differ from the original complaint. Record who knew about the report and the explanation given for the later decision. This allows an adviser to examine the possible connection without assuming that sequence alone proves causation.

Keep a separate record of impact, including work consequences, financial loss and support sought, with sensitive health details shared only where appropriate. When requesting advice, provide a short overview and the chronology with numbered evidence. Flag imminent deadlines and avoid assuming that a recent event revives every older complaint. If the employer offers an explanation, preserve it even if you disagree. A useful chronology shows competing accounts and gaps as well as supporting material, enabling a focused assessment of what may be claimed and what evidence remains necessary.