Royal Mail Group Ltd and Others

Case Summary

The claimant, a Black African male employed by Royal Mail Group Limited since June 2021, brought claims of race and sex discrimination and victimisation relating to his treatment in the amalgamation area between September 2023 and June 2024. The tribunal dismissed all claims after finding no unfavourable treatment on the grounds of race or sex, and that the claimant's removal from the area did not occur as alleged.

The tribunal found no unfavourable treatment on grounds of race or sex. The claimant sometimes working alone was consistent with how colleagues were treated, and Mr Patel's text comment did not constitute less favourable treatment compared to people of Asian race. Additionally, the claimant admitted he was not removed from amalgamation on 21 March 2024 as alleged, so this allegation of unfavourable treatment failed.

• •Time limits under section 123 of Equality Act 2010
• •Direct sex discrimination - male claimant comparing treatment with women
• •Direct race discrimination - Black African claimant comparing treatment with people of Asian race
• •Victimisation
• •Whether claimant was made to work alone without support from September 2023 to June 2024
• •Whether Mr Patel's comment 'you are a man and must deal with it' constituted discriminatory treatment
• •Whether claimant was removed from amalgamation area on 21 March 2024

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondents E Kumordji v (1) Royal Mail Group Limited (2) B Kuko-Lyll (3) J Patel (4) E Omokaro Heard at: Cambridge (by video) On: 3,4 and 5 March 2026 Before: Employment Judge W Anderson Appearances For the claimant: M Duodu (lay representative) For the respondent: H Ahmed (counsel) JUDGMENT 1. The claimant’s claims of race and sex discrimination, and victimisation, are dismissed. REASONS Background 1. The claimant has been employed by the respondent since 25 June 2021. Following a period of early conciliation from 2 to 5 August 2024 he issued a claim about race and sex discrimination, and victimisation, on 7 August 2024. The respondent denies discriminating against or victimising the claimant. The Hearing 2. The parties filed a joint bundle of 262 pages. There has previously been some correspondence around the bundle, but Mr Duodu confirmed at the outset that the claimant was content that the bundle contained all relevant documentation. I also received a cast list and chronology from the respondent. Four witness statement were filed. One from the claimant and three from the respondent. The respondent’s witnesses were Mr Omokaro, Mr Patel and Mr Kuko-Lyii. All witnesses attended the hearing and gave evidence on oath. 2 3. Mr Duodu raised with me that the claimant had applied to amend his claim to include race and sex discrimination and EJ Quill’s response was not in the bundle. I told Mr Duodu that the claimant had clearly pleaded race and sex discrimination in the ET1 and I accepted that his case was about both of these matters. 4. I gave oral judgment on 5 March 2026. Mr Duodu requested written reasons. The Issues 5. The issues were set out by EJ McCooey in an order dated 16 October 2025 as follows. I have added a date at paragraph 1.1 whi…