Landscape architect wins £60,000 race discrimination payout after being put on Royal Borough of Greenwich council panel to show off how diverse it was

A landscape architect has won more than £60,000 after her boss said she was ‘silly’ for complaining about being discriminated against.

Council project manager Mary Karooma-Brooker was found to have been the victim of ‘tokenistic treatment’ when her employees asked her to be on an interview panel.

She had been invited by the Royal Borough of Greenwich’s parks department so they could show off how diverse they were without allowing her to give ‘substantive’ input.

The experienced local authorities worker, from Uganda, had raised concerns about her treatment after an equality and diversity training session but they were brushed off, an employment tribunal heard.

Mrs Karooma-Brooker also claimed she was given work she was overqualified for and said she was the victim of ‘microagressions’ including a colleague ‘failing to acknowledge her presence’.

The project manager has now successfully sued the Royal Borough of Greenwich in south east London for racial discrimination and victimisation.

The tribunal found there was ‘widespread use of racially stereotypical language’ towards Mrs Karooma-Brooker and that her boss had ‘minimised’ her race concerns.

She has now been awarded £20,000 in compensation for injury to feelings and £43,773.15 for loss of earnings.

The project manager has now successfully sued the Royal Borough of Greenwich (pictured) in south east London for racial discrimination and victimisation

The tribunal, held in Croydon, London, heard that Mrs Karooma-Brooker worked for the Royal Borough of Greenwich as a junior project manager in the parks department.

In August 2018 she first raised concerns about racism with her manager, Lisa Lawrence, following equality and diversity training but Ms Lawrence denied that there was any discrimination and called Mrs Karooma-Brooker ‘silly’.

This came after a landscape project managed by Mrs Karooma-Brooker where colleagues did not co-operate with her and failed to attend meetings she organised until she was eventually asked to hand the project back to Ms Lawrence and another co-worker.

In June 2020, following the murder of George Floyd, Mrs Karooma-Brooker contacted her team via WhatsApp and email to discuss racial issues at work and sent around reading materials on Black Lives Matter.

When she returned to work after the pandemic she experienced microaggressions with co-workers ignoring her and not directing anything to her, the tribunal heard.

Later that year Mrs Karooma-Brooker was on a site visit to work out where to put a water fountain when she discovered that another colleague had been asked to redesign the playground in the same park.

The tribunal found she been given an element that required ‘less expertise’ despite having the qualifications and experience to design a kids’ park.

The next day she emailed senior management at the council to ask for ‘immediate intervention’ to address ‘long-standing inequalities’ in the parks department.

The tribunal, held in Croydon (pictured), London, heard that Mrs Karooma-Brooker worked for the Royal Borough of Greenwich as a junior project manager in the parks department

She then exchanged emails with one of the bosses, Rob Goring, who denied her experience of the incident.

Throughout this period Mrs Karooma-Brooker was told that her role was being re-evaluated and she could be moved to a higher pay grade, in the three years she waited for this her white colleagues’ roles were evaluated and they were given pay rises.

The tribunal heard that before moving to the UK Mrs Karooma-Brooker had held a very senior role in local government managing several services.

She said she took the ‘very junior role’ in Greenwich because she needed a job and was told there were opportunities to progress.

At one point Mrs Karooma-Brooker was also asked to sit on an interview panel but was given no information aside from the date and was not allowed to ‘substantively participate’ in the recruitment process.

The tribunal found that this was ‘tokenistic treatment’ contrary to the Royal Borough of Greenwich’s recruitment process and that council ‘wished to promote’ the architect’s skin colour to the interviewees.

Employment Judge Ashley Fredericks-Bowyer also concluded that Mrs Karooma-Brooker had been referred to in stereotypical terms several times.

As well as the ‘silly’ incident the project manager was referred to as a ‘qualified nuisance’ for raising issues; in a grievance report she was described as ‘authoritarian’, issues with her ‘professionalism’ were raised and Mrs Karooma-Brooker was described as having a ‘strong personality’.

Mrs Karooma-Brooker also brought a successful victimisation claim to the tribunal for the way she was treated during her grievance process including that she had to wait nine months for an outcome.

EJ Fredericks-Bowyer found that Mrs Karooma-Brooker racially discriminated against and said that Ms Lawrence had minimised her experience.

He said: ‘Noting the pervasive elements of… the tokenistic treatment, the minimising of race by [Ms Karooma-Brooker’s] line manager, and the widespread use of potentially racially stereotypical language in respect of the claimant, we consider that it is possible to conclude that the less favourable treatment was done to the claimant because of her race.’ 

A council spokesperson said: ‘The Royal Borough of Greenwich is proud to have a diverse workforce and is committed to equality, equity, diversity, and inclusion. We value each and every one of our staff, and do not tolerate discrimination of any kind.

‘We take our responsibilities extremely seriously and this is underpinned by our clear, zero tolerance approach to discrimination, harassment, and victimisation of all kinds.

‘Our commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) is embedded within our corporate plan. We have a programme of mandatory staff training, and we are currently working with staff to develop an Anti-Racism Strategy. 

‘We are disappointed, but we are committed to taking all learning from this case to ensure everyone that works for us is treated fairly and supported to achieve their full potential in an organisation as diverse as the communities we serve.’