Naomi Gyane

Naomi has a diverse employment practice advising companies, individuals and local authorities on all aspects of employment law, discrimination, whistleblowing and contractual disputes.

Businesses and Local Authorities regularly instruct Naomi at Final Hearings and to draft clear and compliant employment contracts and HR policies. She provides bespoke employment training to solicitors, HR staff and managers and undertakes grievance investigations. Her experience is invaluable to employers particularly Local Authorities who instruct her to provide robust advice and effective representation in Tribunals.

Naomi represents both Claimants and Respondents and has represented in complaints of discrimination and harassment on the grounds of / related to sex, race, age, disability, sexual orientation and religion. She has represented in victimisation claims, unfair and automatically unfair dismissals, whistleblowing detriments and TUPE transfers.

Many clients and insurance providers find it useful to obtain written advice on prospects and quantum. Due to her experience representing both Claimants and Respondents, Naomi is regularly instructed to provide Opinions on merits, disclosure, litigation strategy, quantum and settlement packages.

Naomi also drafts grievances, pleadings, interim relief applications, strike-out applications, schedules of loss and witness statements for final hearings.

Selected Cases

Allington v Grange Rose Hill

Successfully represented the Claimant in her claim for indirect age discrimination and unfair dismissal. The Claimant was awarded over £140,000 in compensation.

A v R1 & R2

Successfully represented the Respondents defending claims of employee status, sex and sexual orientation discrimination, sexual harassment, whistleblowing detriment, automatic unfair dismissal, and indirect discrimination. Naomi also secured for the Respondents lifelong anonymity orders, reporting restrictions and £9,000 in costs against the Claimant.

A Company Client

Naomi is currently advising a large enterprise with over 10,000 employees on their appropriate response to the Coronavirus pandemic and its impact on their workforce, their legal obligations therein under the Equality Act 2010 and Employment Rights Act 2010, as well as the approach to adopt for collective redundancies, redeployment and furlough selection.

C v R1

Represented the Respondent sued for alleged unfair dismissal, wages act breaches and breach of the working time regulations. The Claimant, alleged she had been brought to the country as a domestic help and had been mistreated. The case dealt with interesting issues regarding the Modern Slavery Act 2015, immigration, the extent of employment procedures in familial contexts, quantum assessments in light of deductions for accommodation and securing live-link evidence from witnesses based internationally. Claimant withdrew.

B v R1, R2 & R3

represented the Claimant in this claim for automatic unfair dismissal. Drafted interim relief application to ensure she continued to receive pay until the determination of the complaint. Case settled.

​Rawlins v LB Wandsworth

Successfully represented the Respondent against claims of race discrimination spanning several years, and automatic unfair dismissal due to whistle-blowing and/or Trade Union activities.

Marangoh v Keir MG Ltd

Naomi successfully represented the Claimant who was employed as an Assistant Quantity Surveyor. The Claimant had complained of 11 incidents of race and age discrimination. He complained that he was subsequently dismissed due to his age and race. After a multi-day Tribunal hearing at the London South Employment Tribunal, the Tribunal unanimously ruled in favour of the Claimant. They held that he had suffered direct race and age discrimination in the majority of the instances complained about and had been dismissed on the basis of his race and age. The trial involved the analysis of raw spreadsheet data, statistics, as well as the Employer’s disciplinary and probationary procedures.

North v Alpha LSG Ltd

Naomi successfully represented the Claimant in his claims for indirect disability discrimination, discrimination arising from a disability and a failure to make reasonable adjustments. The Claimant also succeeded in his claim for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. It was alleged that the Claimant had falsified his hours in order to obtain financial gain and was therefore dismissed fairly. The Tribunal rejected this assertion and stated that ‘the Claimant’s Counsel’s analysis of the hours worked over those weeks, and that they show him [the Claimant] working at least 40 hours per week, is fatal to the respondent’s case.’’