Case 3201296/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Elizabeth Kolajo v London Borough of Newham — 2021
- Case reference
- 3201296/2020
- Decision date
- 18 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Members
- Panel members
- Ms J Henry, Ms P Alford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Elizabeth Kolajo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Kolajo worked for the respondent as an agency business analyst. After about a month, Ms Cooper ended the placement. The respondent said this was for performance reasons; Ms Kolajo said it was because she was the only person in the team of black African heritage.
The tribunal found that Ms Cooper had concerns about the claimant's output, including the pace and quality of work, the content of communications with the legal department, the process maps produced, and the claimant's involvement in a workshop agenda. It found that the report that Ms Kolajo appeared to sleep before a workshop was the point at which Ms Cooper decided the placement should end.
The tribunal could not identify primary facts from which race discrimination could be inferred, so the burden of proof did not shift to the respondent. It also found that, if the burden had shifted, it would have been met because Ms Cooper had genuine reasons for ending the placement and race had nothing to do with the decision. The claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment identifies the claim as direct race discrimination arising from the ending of the claimant's agency placement. It states that the claim is dismissed. Although the gov.uk listing category includes unfair dismissal, the judgment records that the issue was discrimination, not unfairness, and does not adjudicate an unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.11 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- Igen Ltd & Ors v Wong
- Barton v Investec Securities Ltd
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Laing v Manchester City Council
- Ayodele v Citylink Ltd & Anor
- Bahl v The Law Society & Anor
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.