Mr MO Akinola v West London YMCA: 2201907/2018
| Judgment Date | 10 November 2020 |
| Citation | 2201907/2018 |
| Date | 10 November 2020 |
| Published date | 20 November 2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Race Discrimination |
Case Number: 2201907/2018
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Mr MO Akinola v West London YMCA
Heard at: London Central On: 26 –28 (in person) and 29
(in chambers) October 2020
Before: Employment Judge E Burns
Ms S Pendle
Ms C Buckland
Representation
For the Claimant: In person
For the Respondent: Mr M Green (counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the Employment Tribunal is as follows:
(1) The claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal is dismissed
(2) The claimant’s claim of direct discrimination because of race is dismissed.
(3) The claimant’s claims for unpaid notice paid, arrears of pay and holiday pay
are dismissed.
Case Number: 2201907/2018
2
REASONS
CLAIM
1. This was a claim arising from the claimant’s employment with the
respondent from 1 May 2007 to 22 December 2017. The claimant presented
his claim on 6 April 2018 following a period of early conciliation between 23
February to 6 April 2018.
THE ISSUES
2. The issues were discussed at a preliminary hearing conducted for case
management purposes on 1 August 2018. The judge conducting that
hearing ordered the claimant to provide some further information of his claim
for race discrimination which he duly did. We therefore spent time at the
start of the hearing reviewing that and clarifying and agreeing a final list of
issues.
3. The issues to be determined were as follows:
Race Discrimination
3.1 It was not in dispute that the respondent dismissed the claimant.
3.2 Was the dismissal “less favourable treatment”, i.e. did the respondent treat
the claimant less favourably than it treated or would have treated others
(“comparators”) in not materially different circumstances?
The claimant relied on a hypothetical comparator
3.3 If so, was the less favourable treatment because of the claimant’s race?
The claimant wished us to take account of the following assertions when
considering his discrimination claim:
“(i) [Ms Burl] was disgusted/racial that a black person have an air of
superiority to her, especially telling her what to do. She was
determined to find fault and punish me.
(ii) She developed a narrative that casts doubt on my eligibility to work. In
the letter of dismissal for example, the manager said they thought
about reducing my hours to accommodate supplementary work, but
they concluded that I cannot even do that. Thus the narrative is that I
am not eligible to work. Where is this coming from if not from a racial
prism.
(ii) Even before going to tribunal my immigration case was settled and I
gave [the respondent] the judgement, they still refused to reconsider. I
am not sure [Ms Burl] brought this to the notice of management. This
shows that the issue at stake was more than my eligibility to work.
To continue reading
Request your trial