Case 2209944/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Sato-Rossberg v SOAS University of London — 2024
- Case reference
- 2209944/2023
- Decision date
- 8 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown Members
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr A Adolphus, Ms H Craik
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Sato-Rossberg
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints against SOAS University of London alleging race discrimination, race harassment, victimisation, and protected disclosure detriment. The tribunal recorded a detailed list of alleged acts, including complaints about workload, communications, investigation handling, and the outcome of an internal investigation.
The tribunal found that the respondent had not subjected the claimant to race discrimination, race harassment, victimisation, or protected disclosure detriment. In the portions of the reasons provided, it found that the delay in the internal investigation was wholly unreasonable but not intentional, and that the investigation process, choice of investigator, and outcome were not shown to be related to race or protected acts.
The tribunal concluded that all of the claimant's complaints failed. It stated that a remedy hearing would not take place.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the respondent did not subject the claimant to race discrimination and that the claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the respondent did not subject the claimant to race harassment and that the claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the respondent did not subject the claimant to victimisation and that the claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the respondent did not subject the claimant to protected disclosure detriment and that the claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Equality Act 2010 s13
- Equality Act 2010 s120
- Equality Act 2010 s123
- Employment Rights Act 1996 s48(3)(a)
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.