Case 2211329/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Fubara v Certus Recruitment Group — 2024
- Case reference
- 2211329/2022
- Decision date
- 2 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery
- Panel members
- Ms J Griffiths, Mr A Adolphus
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Fubara
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld Ms Fubara's complaint of harassment related to race. It found that four workplace remarks, including the Avatar comment about her braids on 15 March 2022, the 'ghetto music' remark on 21 July 2022, the comment about non-English names, and the 'roadman' remark on 12 September 2022, were all made and were all related to race. The tribunal accepted that the March incident was outside the primary time limit but extended time on a just and equitable basis. It found the conduct was not intended to harass, but that in context it had the effect of violating dignity and creating a hostile environment, taking into account the cumulative workplace context described in evidence.
The reasonable adjustments complaint failed. The tribunal accepted that Ms Fubara had ENT and sinus problems and that air conditioning or travel could worsen symptoms, but it was not satisfied that the impairment had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, so disability was not proved for Equality Act purposes. It also found no fixed seating-plan PCP in the way alleged, because the evidence showed she could move desks away from the vent.
The unlawful deduction claim about commission succeeded. The tribunal interpreted the commission terms so that payment fell due when the commission statement was issued, not only if the claimant remained employed on payday. It held that once the commission statement had been generated the respondent's discretion had already been exercised, and it awarded the agreed commission sum of £2,350. The separate sick pay complaint failed because the claimant had not had a sickness absence lasting three days or more, so there was no entitlement to statutory sick pay. The tribunal awarded £8,500 for injury to feelings, £1,509 interest on that award, £2,350 for the commission deduction, and £156.58 interest on that sum, making a total award of £12,515.58.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Four incidents were proved; the 15 March 2022 Avatar remark was out of time but time was extended on a just and equitable basis. | Upheld | Race | £8,500 |
| Disability discrimination | ENT/sinus issues were accepted, but the tribunal was not satisfied that the condition had a substantial long-term effect or that the seating arrangement created the relevant disadvantage. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal construed the commission clause in the claimant's favour and awarded the agreed commission sum plus interest. | Upheld | — | £2,350 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | No sickness absence lasted three days or more, so no statutory sick pay entitlement arose. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,516
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,350
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
16 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Pemberton v Inwood
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Nazir and Aslam v Asim and Nottinghamshire Black Partnership
- Bakkali v Greater Manchester (South) t/a Stagecoach Manchester
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Chacón Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA
- Mutombo-Mpania v Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- Potter v Hunt Contracts Ltd
- Robertson v Blackstone Franks Investment Management Ltd
- Johnson v Veritas Technologies (UK) Ltd
- Cleeve Link Ltd v Bryla
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.