Case 3200398/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M M Amoo v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200398/2019
- Decision date
- 7 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms G Forrest, Mr D Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M M Amoo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the case at the East London Hearing Centre on 4, 5 and 6 January 2022 before Employment Judge Gardiner, sitting with members Ms G Forrest and Mr D Ross.
The judgment records that the Claimant's complaints were not well founded and were dismissed. The written judgment does not set out separate reasons for each complaint or identify any remedy awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The gov.uk listing categorises the case as Race Discrimination; the judgment text states only that the Claimant's complaints were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The gov.uk listing categorises the case as Sex Discrimination; the judgment text states only that the Claimant's complaints were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The gov.uk listing categorises the case as Unlawful Deduction from Wages; the judgment text states only that the Claimant's complaints were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The gov.uk listing categorises the case as Working Time Regulations; the judgment text states only that the Claimant's complaints were not well founded and were dismissed. | 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.