Case 6011827/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Omolu Omolu v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6011827/2025
- Decision date
- 10 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Omolu Omolu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 4 June 2026, Judge Miller-Varey struck out Mr J Omolu Omolu's complaints against Amazon UK Services Limited of indirect race discrimination, direct race discrimination and harassment related to race. The tribunal also struck out the victimisation complaint relying on the grievance of 28 May 2024 as a protected act. All four complaints were struck out under rule 38(1)(a) because they had no reasonable prospect of success.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment records the strike-out ground but gives no further factual findings or reasons for the individual complaints. It records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Indirect race discrimination; struck out under rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination; struck out under rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race; struck out under rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The strike-out covers victimisation relying on the grievance of 28 May 2024 as a protected act. The complaint had no reasonable prospect of success under rule 38(1)(a). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38(1)(a): no reasonable prospect of success
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.