Case 2301202/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Karooma-Brooker v Royal Borough of Greenwich — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301202/2022
- Decision date
- 16 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Tribunal
- Panel members
- Tribunal Member Beeston, Tribunal Member Hutchings
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Karooma-Brooker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the respondent's response under Rule 37(1)(b) and Rule 37(1)(e) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The claimant's direct sex discrimination, indirect sex discrimination, direct sex discrimination in employment, and indirect race discrimination claims were dismissed as not well founded. Her direct race discrimination, direct race discrimination in employment, and victimisation claims were found well founded and succeeded.
The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction over the out of time elements of the successful claims because they formed a continuous course of conduct under s.123(3)(a) Equality Act 2010, and in any event it was just and equitable to treat them as in time. The respondent was ordered to pay £43,773.15 gross for losses caused by the discrimination found and £20,000 for injury to feelings; aggravated damages, interest, and recommendations were refused.
Claims and outcomes
7 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Indirect sex discrimination under s.19 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination in employment under s.39 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Indirect race discrimination under s.19 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010 succeeded; the award was not split by claim. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination in employment under s.39 Equality Act 2010 succeeded; the award was not split by claim. | Upheld | Race |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £63,773
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £43,773
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- Rule 37(1)(b) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(1)(e) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- s.39 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.123(3)(a) Equality Act 2010
- s.123(2)(b) Equality Act 2010
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.