Case 2304622/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Johal v Richmond upon Thames College — 2021
- Case reference
- 2304622/2019
- Decision date
- 15 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Johal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr B Johal brought claims against Richmond Upon Thames College for race harassment, unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination and victimisation. The tribunal held that the race harassment claims were lodged outside the time limit for bringing such claims and found that it would not be just and equitable to extend time, so those claims were dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the dismissal claims. It found that the claim that the dismissal was unfair was not well founded, and it separately found that the claim that the dismissal was automatically unfair was not well founded. The direct race discrimination and victimisation claims were also found not well founded. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The race harassment claims were lodged outside the time limit, and the tribunal found it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim that the claimant's dismissal was unfair was found not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The separate claim that the dismissal was automatically unfair was found not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The direct race discrimination claim was found not well founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation claim was found not well founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable
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.