Case 1302132/2018 · Employment Tribunal
E Opoku Agyemang v Hatters Hostels Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1302132/2018
- Decision date
- 2 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gilroy QC
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs D P Hill, Mr P Deneen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E Opoku Agyemang
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Birmingham on 2 September 2019 before Employment Judge Gilroy QC, sitting with Mrs D P Hill and Mr P Deneen. The claimant, E Opoku Agyemang, appeared in person. The respondent, Hatters Hostels Limited, did not attend or take part in the hearing.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s direct race discrimination claim, describing it as not well founded. It also dismissed the claim of harassment on the grounds of race, again finding it not well founded. The judgment does not set out any separate findings in the extracted text beyond those summary conclusions.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant’s claims for unlawful deductions from wages, holiday pay, and notice pay, each on the basis that the claim was not well founded. No financial award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination was found not well founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment on the grounds of race was found not well founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deductions from wages was found not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for holiday pay was found not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay was found not well founded; classified as breach of contract because that is the closest taxonomy match in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.