Case 2303549/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Okobia v Leigh Academies Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303549/2022
- Decision date
- 23 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pritchard Members
- Venue
- Ashford
- Panel members
- Mr P Dodd
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Okobia
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered claims of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race arising from the Respondent's handling of concerns raised about the Claimant's conduct in June 2022 and related later events. The Claimant described herself as black and of Nigerian heritage, and the Tribunal considered allegations including being put on paid leave, being asked to leave the school while on paid leave, allegations being retained on file, and alleged delay in investigations.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent's actions were explained by concerns about safeguarding, complaints made by students, a parent and staff, and the management of an investigation. It did not accept some factual allegations, including that discriminatory language was used or that there was intentional delay by Ms Mercer. The Tribunal concluded that none of the reasons for the Respondent's conduct had anything to do with race, and that the conduct was not related to race for the purposes of harassment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The reserved judgment states that the claim of direct race discrimination is dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The reserved judgment states that the claim of harassment related to race is dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Equality Act 2010 section 13
- Equality Act 2010 section 26
- Selkent Bus Co v Moore 1996 ICR 836
- Wiggan v Wooler and Company Ltd EAT 052/06
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
- Open official judgment 4 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.