Case 2403103/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Omolu Omolu v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403103/2022
- Decision date
- 29 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms A. Ashworth, Ms J. Whistler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Omolu Omolu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a black man of Nigerian origin, worked for the respondent as a Fulfilment Centre Associate and acted as a Proxy Team Leader. He brought claims alleging direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, and victimisation, including complaints about career progression, contract status, performance records, workplace interactions, and the handling of grievances.
The tribunal found that the respondent's explanations for the matters visible in the extracted judgment were non-discriminatory, including business needs around Proxy Team Leader coverage and the use of staff with specific training. The unanimous reserved judgment stated that the direct race discrimination, harassment, and victimisation claims were not well-founded and dismissed them.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the claims of direct discrimination because of race/national origin under section 13 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal dismissed the claims of harassment related to race under section 26 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal dismissed the claims of victimisation under section 27 Equality Act 2010; the accepted protected act was the claimant's September 2020 grievance. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 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.