Case 1300008/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Ahmed v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1300008/2024
- Decision date
- 1 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
- Venue
- Midlands West
- Panel members
- Miss S Outwin, Mr P Kennedy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Ahmed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Tesco Stores Limited did not discriminate against Mr Ahmed because of race under section 39 of the Equality Act 2010. The dismissed allegations included making and investigating allegations about weekly hours, overtime entry, and a bank holiday pay adjustment; issuing a final written warning; transferring him out of his administration role; verbally inviting him to a disciplinary hearing; handling his grievance; and failing to respond to a flexible working request.
The tribunal also found that Tesco Stores Limited did not harass Mr Ahmed under section 40 of the Equality Act 2010. The harassment complaints concerned the investigation of the allegations and the alleged demotion to an ordinary Customer Services Assistant in conjunction with and following the final written warning.
All of the claimant's complaints failed and were dismissed. The judgment records that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held that the respondent did not contravene section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 by discriminating against the claimant because of race in relation to the listed disciplinary, grievance and flexible working matters. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal held that the respondent did not contravene section 40 of the Equality Act 2010 by harassing the claimant in relation to the listed allegations and demotion/final written warning. The written judgment excerpt does not separately restate the protected characteristic for harassment, but the case is framed as race discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 39 Equality Act 2010
- section 40 Equality Act 2010
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.