Case 3200561/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Miss N Woko v Brooklands Care Home Limited and 1 other — 2022

Case reference: 3200561/2021
Decision date: 8 August 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Scott Members
Venue: East London Hearing Centre
Panel members: Mrs G McLaughlin, Mr M Rowe

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Miss N Woko

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Ms Woko was employed by Brooklands Care Home Limited as a health care assistant from 18 December 2019 until her dismissal on 11 November 2020. The tribunal found that she was not provided with a written contract or other written statement satisfying s1 ERA 1996, although some terms were discussed with her. It also noted that she did not have two years' continuous service, so she could not bring an unfair dismissal claim, and said that if it had been asked to decide wrongful dismissal it would have found in her favour because the text message issue did not amount to gross misconduct.

On the direct race discrimination claims, Ms Woko alleged that Ms Walker fabricated allegations, referred her 9 November text to management, and created a complaint that she rushed residents, and that Ms Crane then treated the text as a disciplinary issue, failed to follow a fair process, made a DBS referral and dismissed her. The tribunal accepted that Ms Crane's investigation was inadequate and that the dismissal was unfair at that stage, but found that the respondent's actions were driven by Peninsula advice and the safeguarding/regulatory context, not by race. It accepted that Ms Walker had left the respondent for a serious personal reason and drew no adverse inference from her absence, and it found there was no sufficient evidence from which race could be inferred as the reason for the treatment complained of.

The harassment allegation was that Ms Crane deliberately shouted at the claimant when quoting the swear words in the text message. The tribunal found as a fact that Ms Crane did not raise her voice, so the harassment claim failed. It also found that the DBS referral followed from the dismissal and the regulatory process rather than from the claimant's race. The tribunal therefore dismissed both race discrimination claims and the harassment claim, but upheld the written statement claim without making any monetary award under s38 Employment Act 2002 because no Equality Act claim succeeded.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	Direct race discrimination claim against Brooklands Care Home Limited arising from Ms Walker's allegations, the referral of the 9 November text, the complaint that the claimant rushed residents, the disciplinary process, the dismissal and the DBS referral; dismissed because the tribunal found no evidence that race played any part.	Dismissed	Race	—
Race discrimination	Direct race discrimination claim against Ms Katie-Anne Crane based on the same treatment; dismissed because the tribunal found Ms Crane relied on Peninsula advice and on regulatory concerns, not on the claimant's race.	Dismissed	Race	—
Harassment	Alleged harassment by Ms Crane when quoting the swear words in the text message; dismissed because the tribunal found that Ms Crane did not raise her voice.	Dismissed	Race	—
Other	Claim that the first respondent failed to provide a written statement of particulars of employment under s1 ERA 1996; upheld, but no compensation was awarded under s38 Employment Act 2002 because the Equality Act claims failed.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

13 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.