Case 2306761/2023 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Ms C Ukoumunne (2) Mr M Webb v University of Greenwich — 2025
- Case reference
- 2306761/2023
- Decision date
- 21 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright Tribunal
- Panel members
- F Whiting, N Shanks
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Ms C Ukoumunne (2) Mr M Webb
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London South on 18-21 August 2025 before Employment Judge D Wright with Tribunal Members F Whiting and N Shanks. The tribunal reserved to a differently constituted tribunal the first claimant's complaint of direct race discrimination that she was paid less than other colleagues, and the first claimant's equal pay claim based on sex.
The remaining claims were dismissed. The first and second claimants' unfair dismissal claims were not well founded. Their direct race discrimination claims, other than the reserved pay-related issue, were dismissed, as was the first claimant's direct sex discrimination claim other than equal pay. The tribunal found that the second claimant's belief in Critical Race Theory was a protected belief, but his direct discrimination claim based on that belief was dismissed. The first and second claimants' victimisation claims were also dismissed. No monetary award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claims by both claimants. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claims by both claimants, excluding the first claimant's reserved pay-related complaint. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | First claimant only; the equal pay claim was reserved to a differently constituted tribunal. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Second claimant only; the tribunal found his belief in Critical Race Theory was a protected belief. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Victimisation | Claims by both claimants. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.