Case 3303592/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Johnson v DHL Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3303592/2020
- Decision date
- 27 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr A Scott, Mr D Bean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Johnson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed all complaints of direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation. It also found that it did not have jurisdiction over complaints about the 'ten a penny' remark and D&A tests in January 2019 and March 2019 because those claims were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The tribunal decided the claimant's allegations or arguments that he had been discriminated against contrary to the Equality Act on the grounds of race against the claimant for substantially the same reasons identified in the deposit order sent to the parties on 27 March 2021. Under Rule 39(5)(b), the £200 deposit was ordered to be paid to the respondent.
The respondent's application for costs succeeded. The claimant was ordered to pay a further £1,000 to the respondent, in addition to the forfeited £200 deposit, within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Complaints of direct discrimination were dismissed. The tribunal also held that it had no jurisdiction over complaints about the 'ten a penny' remark and D&A tests in January 2019 and March 2019 because they were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | All harassment complaints were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | All victimisation complaints were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 39(5)(b)
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.