Cambridge Students' Union Worker Partially Succeeds in Race Harassment Claim, Tribunal Rules

The tribunal found that Mr M Mumisa began working for the Cambridge Students' Union in the Student Advice Service on 20 November 2023. Early in his employment, his manager, Oli Gray, questioned him about his office hours and breaks during a one-to-one meeting on 1 February 2024. The tribunal also heard that Mr Mumisa telephoned the Cambridge Trust to ask a query about scholarships without the consent of a student or disclosing their identity.

On 8 May 2024, the tribunal found that Mr Mumisa's probation was extended by three months following a review meeting with Caroline Way and Oli Gray. During this meeting, the tribunal found that Mr Mumisa requested formal training, including a written plan and monitoring. The tribunal also found that during this meeting, Mr Mumisa raised concerns regarding race discrimination and unfair treatment.

The tribunal heard that Mr Mumisa emailed Fergus Kirman on 3 June 2024 regarding discrimination and systemic issues. This was followed by a one-to-one meeting on 27 June 2024 between Mr Mumisa and Ms Way. The tribunal found this became a heated discussion regarding discrimination and the use of the messaging app Slack.

The tribunal heard Ms Way told Mr Mumisa, "I am offended. I cannot understand why my intentions do not matter. You are calling me a racist." However, the tribunal found that Mr Mumisa did not call Ms Way a racist. The tribunal heard that on or around 15 July 2024, Simon To instructed the HR Department to investigate Mr Mumisa's grievance.

On 21 August 2024, Simon To issued the grievance outcome, which was not upheld. The tribunal heard that on 30 August 2024, Mr Mumisa attended an extended probation review meeting. During this meeting, Ms Way informed him that he had failed probation and his employment was terminated. The judge said that Ms Way decided to dismiss him because he was not updating the Case Manager.

The tribunal found that Mr Mumisa's claim for direct discrimination because of race was not well founded and failed. While the tribunal found that Mr Mumisa was treated less favourably than another employee, Simona Obeng, it decided this was because Ms Way believed Mr Mumisa had disregarded her authority, rather than because of his race.

Regarding harassment, the tribunal found that the claim for harassment related to race succeeded in connection with the incident on 27 June 2024. However, the tribunal found that his claim for harassment related to any other incident failed.

The tribunal also considered claims for victimisation. One claim was withdrawn and another failed. The tribunal did find that Mr Mumisa's raising of concerns on 8 May 2024 and his email on 3 June 2024 were protected acts. This judgment decides whether the claims succeed; any compensation will be decided separately at a later stage.

This case shows how employment tribunals assess claims of discrimination and harassment in the workplace. It demonstrates that even when a worker raises concerns about discrimination, the tribunal must carefully examine the specific reasons behind an employer's decisions.

If you are facing problems at work or believe you have been treated unfairly, you can contact Acas for free and impartial advice. They can help you understand your legal rights and the options available to you.

• Acas: The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service: a free, impartial public body that advises on problems at work and helps employers and workers settle disputes.
• Claimant: The person who brings the claim, usually the worker or former worker.
• Direct discrimination: Treating someone less favourably because of a protected characteristic, such as their age, disability, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation.
• Employment tribunal: An independent judicial body that decides disputes between workers and employers, such as unfair dismissal and discrimination claims.
• Harassment: Unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic, or of a sexual nature, that violates someone's dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.
• Protected act: An action that is legally protected, such as raising a discrimination complaint.
• Respondent: The employer, or other person or organisation, the claim is made against.
• Victimisation: Treating someone badly because they complained about discrimination, or helped someone else who did.
• Well-founded: The tribunal's phrase for a claim that succeeds. "Not well-founded" means it fails.

Case number: 6008215/2024
Claimant: Mr M Mumisa
Respondent: Cambridge Students' Union
Tribunal: Employment Tribunal, Cambridge (Employment Judge Booth)
Decision date: 28 August 2026

Read the full decision on GOV.UK

Topics: race discrimination, victimisation discrimination, harassment, victimisation

This report explains a published tribunal decision in plain English. It is general information, not legal advice.

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.