Case 3204895/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Jessica Amadou v The Co-Operative Group Ltd and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3204895/2021
- Decision date
- 31 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barrett
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Professor J Ukemenam, Mr J Webb
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss Jessica Amadou
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, a Black African agency worker at the First Respondent's Thurrock depot, brought complaints of direct race discrimination, race-related harassment and victimisation arising from events between March and May 2021. The complaints concerned alleged treatment by a colleague, Mr Girbea, responses by managers and agency staff to her complaints, rota decisions, performance management, and later interactions with other staff.
The Tribunal found that some factual allegations occurred in whole or in part, including that Mr Girbea behaved inappropriately towards the Claimant at points, that some investigations or feedback by managers were insufficient, and that the Claimant was not placed on the rota during some periods. However, it found that the proven conduct was not because of race and, for the harassment claim, was not related to race. It accepted explanations including concerns about performance, attempts to manage workplace conflict, communication difficulties, and the operational context around the TUPE transfer.
For victimisation, the Tribunal found that the Claimant's 11 March 2021 written complaint and 24 April 2021 verbal allegation were protected acts. It nevertheless concluded that the proven detriments were not done because of those protected acts. The claims for direct race discrimination, race-related harassment and victimisation were therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The Claimant's direct race discrimination complaints were found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The Claimant's race-related harassment complaints were found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The Tribunal accepted that the Claimant did protected acts on 11 March 2021 and 24 April 2021, but found that the alleged detriments were not because of those protected acts. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
30 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.41 Equality Act 2010
- s.109 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Housing Corporation v Bryant
- Ministry of Defence v Kemeh
- Base Childrenswear Ltd v Otshudi
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Royal Mail Group v Efobi
- Anya v University of Oxford
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Glasgow City Council v Zafar
- The Law Society v Bahl
- Deman v Commission for Equality and Human Rights
- Chief Constable of Greater Manchester v Bailey
- Martin v Devonshires Solicitors
- Ahmed v Amnesty International
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan
- Coyne v Home Office
- Dunn v Secretary of State for Justice
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- UNITE the Union v Nailard
- Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust v Aslam
- Hartley v FCO Services
- Warby v Wunda Ground Plc क् Dhaliwal [2009] IRLR 336 at [22] 179. Elias LJ in Land Registry v Grant [2011] ICR 1390 at [47] held that sufficient seriousness should be accorded to the terms ‘violation
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.