Case 3200408/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Samuel Jonjo v HC-One Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200408/2021
- Decision date
- 7 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Knight Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mrs G McLaughlin, Mr J Quinlan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Samuel Jonjo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim relating to the dismissal on 8 November 2019 because it held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear that claim. It upheld the claim for unfair dismissal on the ground of having made a protected disclosure in relation to the dismissal on 22 September 2020.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent discriminated against the Claimant on the ground of race in respect of three allegations concerning Nurse B: refusing to help the Claimant toilet a resident and saying that this work was for Africans, saying she would do whatever it took to make the Claimant's life uncomfortable, and repeatedly telling the Claimant to "fuck off". The other complaints of discrimination were dismissed.
The Tribunal also dismissed the victimisation complaint and the wrongful dismissal complaint as not well-founded. No remedy figures are stated in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim relating to the dismissal on 8 November 2019. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claim for unfair dismissal on the ground of having made a protected disclosure in relation to the dismissal on 22 September 2020 was well-founded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Race discrimination was upheld in respect of three allegations involving Nurse B. Other complaints of discrimination were dismissed. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The complaint of victimisation was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The complaint of wrongful dismissal was not well-founded and was 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.