Case 2206071/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Damilare Ajao v Commerzbank AG and 5 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 2206071/2019
- Decision date
- 14 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown
- Panel members
- Ms C Ihnatowicz, Mr D Clay
Parties
7 namedClaimant
Mr Damilare Ajao
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought remaining complaints under the Equality Act 2010 for sexual harassment, harassment related to sex, direct sex and race discrimination and victimisation, and a Working Time Regulations claim for compensation for annual leave said to be outstanding on termination. The tribunal unanimously found the Equality Act complaints not well-founded and dismissed the proceedings as a whole.
On victimisation, the tribunal accepted the respondents' reason for dismissal: they judged it necessary to remove the claimant because of their perception that he had become increasingly disruptive and divisive and was likely to continue in that way. It found that any thought about the claimant invoking anti-discrimination rights played no material part in the decision. The tribunal also found that sex and race had nothing to do with the dismissal.
The Working Time Regulations claim failed because the tribunal found the claimant's annual leave entitlement up to termination was 17 days including three bank holidays, that he had taken eight days including three bank holidays, and that he had been correctly paid for the remaining nine days.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment identified complaints of sexual harassment and harassment related to sex under the Equality Act 2010; all Equality Act complaints were found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal held that the dismissal was not because of sex and that a female comparator in otherwise the same circumstances would have been dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held that race had nothing to do with the dismissal and that a person of different race would have been treated in the same way. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found that the dismissal decision was not materially influenced by any belief that the claimant had done, or might do, a protected act. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The Working Time Regulations claim for compensation for annual leave outstanding on termination failed because the tribunal found the claimant had received correctly calculated payment for nine days' pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Equality Act 2010 s13
- Equality Act 2010 s23
- Equality Act 2010 s26
- Equality Act 2010 s27
- Equality Act 2010 s123(3)(a)
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Onu v Akwiwu
- R (Equal Opportunities Commission) v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry
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.