Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Race Discrimination Findings Against Johnson and Johnson Medical Ltd
The EAT upheld race discrimination findings against Johnson and Johnson Medical Ltd but ordered a tribunal to reconsider the extension of time for claims.
• public
EAT Rules on Racial Profiling Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal by Johnson and Johnson Medical Ltd against findings of direct race discrimination, confirming that a manager's use of a "Nigerian working profile" to manage an employee constituted unlawful treatment.
Tribunal Findings on Profiling
The original Employment Tribunal found that the claimant, a senior manager, was subjected to a profiling exercise that aligned her with negative stereotypes associated with her Nigerian nationality. The manager, Alessandra Toro, had used this profile to justify negative feedback and explain difficulties in the working relationship. The Tribunal concluded that this amounted to direct race discrimination, as the claimant was uniquely targeted with these stereotypical traits.
In his judgment, Deputy Judge Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC dismissed the respondent's arguments that the findings were perverse or lacked sufficient legal reasoning. He affirmed that the Tribunal was entitled to focus on the reason for the treatment and conclude that the profiling was carried out because of the claimant's race.
Partial Success for the Employer
While the EAT upheld the core findings of discrimination, it allowed the appeal in part regarding the extension of time for the claims. The Tribunal had initially allowed the claims to proceed on a "just and equitable" basis despite them being presented outside the primary three-month limitation period. The EAT ruled that the Tribunal had failed to properly analyse the extent of, and reasons for, the delay.
The issue of the time extension has been remitted to the original Tribunal for reconsideration. Both parties will be permitted to present evidence on this matter during the new hearing.
Read the entire judgment here: Johnson and Johnson Medical Ltd v Fayokun [2026] EAT 118
