Case 2302621/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Maynard v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2302621/2022
- Decision date
- 25 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MJ Reed
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Maynard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Maynard brought claims for racial harassment and direct race discrimination arising from workplace events at Royal Mail's Croydon Mail Centre. She alleged that colleagues had bullied her because of race, that managers had failed to deal properly with that conduct, and that she had been discriminated against in relation to overtime.
The tribunal found that Ms Maynard genuinely believed her evidence, but that her recollection and interpretation of events were unreliable in a number of respects. It concluded that she had established some bullying by individuals and some unfair treatment, particularly in relation to the internal investigation, but that the evidence did not support an inference that the conduct was related to race.
The tribunal dismissed the race harassment and direct race discrimination complaints. It also found that complaints about matters before 3 May 2022 were out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment states that the complaints of harassment related to race were not well-founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the complaints of direct race discrimination were not well-founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- civil standard of proof
- statutory comparator
- hypothetical comparator
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable to extend time
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.