Case 3201627/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Olatunji v Sodexo Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201627/2019
- Decision date
- 16 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reid Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Olatunji
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment gave written reasons following the claimant's request after an amendment application heard on 30 January 2020. The claimant sought to amend the claim to add Equality Act 2010 claims, but no draft amended particulars of claim were provided; the only document identified ticked the race discrimination box and referred to sections 13, 19, 26 and 27.
The tribunal found that, read as a whole, the ET1 already raised factual matters capable of supporting a victimisation claim based on complaints about past incidents of racial abuse, harassment or bullying. The victimisation allegations identified were claimed monitoring, the trigger to the disciplinary process leading to dismissal, and failure to award a pay rise. Further particulars were required before the respondent could amend its ET3.
The tribunal found that direct discrimination claims concerning dismissal and failure to award a pay rise, and a harassment claim based on dismissal, were entirely new claims requiring permission to amend. Applying Chief Constable of Essex v Kovacevic, the tribunal said it did not have those amendments in writing and therefore could not consider the application in relation to those proposed amendments.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The tribunal found that the ET1 already raised factual matters relating to a victimisation claim concerning alleged monitoring, the trigger to the disciplinary process leading to dismissal, and failure to award a pay rise. The claim was to proceed, subject to further particulars; this was not a final merits outcome. | Other | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The proposed direct race discrimination claims about dismissal and failure to award a pay rise were treated as entirely new claims requiring permission to amend. The tribunal said it could not consider the application because the amendments were not provided in writing as amended particulars; this was not a final merits determination. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | The proposed harassment claim, said to be the act of dismissal, was treated as an entirely new claim requiring permission to amend. The tribunal said it could not consider the application because the amendments were not provided in writing as amended particulars; this was not a final merits determination. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Chief Constable of Essex v Kovacevic (UKEAT 0126/13)
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.