Case 1804759/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Mubin v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1804759/2020
- Decision date
- 16 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dr EP
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr M Mubin
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Mubin had been employed by Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc for about four weeks in July 2017. He later applied on 15 July 2020 for a Technical Systems Manager post and was unsuccessful on 27 July 2020. He applied to amend the claim so that it could cover events in July 2017, but the tribunal refused amendment because it would materially widen the case to events said to have occurred three years earlier, those matters were outside the primary limitation period, and the respondent would suffer prejudice.
The tribunal struck out the direct discrimination claims based on disability and religion or belief. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the 2020 application form did not ask for, and did not contain, information about race, disability, or religion or belief, so there was no factual basis for saying the relevant decision maker took those characteristics into account. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had contemporaneous notes from 2017 about unfair treatment, but he did not then attribute the treatment to any protected characteristic, and he accepted at the hearing that he knew of the time limit for bringing a discrimination claim shortly after leaving in July 2017.
The remaining race discrimination claim, based on the claimant's description of himself as Pakistani Asian, was not finally determined. The tribunal accepted that his name could potentially indicate race, but not inevitably so, and held that the claim had little prospect of success because he was not shortlisted or interviewed, he could not identify the qualifications of the successful candidate or other applicants, and the respondent was entitled to take his earlier employment record into account when assessing a former employee's application. It therefore ordered a deposit of £750, after finding on the claimant's evidence that he had some financial means through family support and his self-employed business.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal held there was no factual basis for saying the decision maker had regard to disability because the application form did not ask for or contain disability information. The claimant relied on dyslexia and a stammer. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Claim was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal held there was no factual basis for saying the decision maker had regard to religion or belief because the application form did not ask for or contain that information. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim based on the claimant's identification as Pakistani Asian. The tribunal did not determine liability; it held the claim had little prospect of success and directed a deposit of £750. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010 series of acts analysis
- rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules no reasonable prospect of success
- rule 39 Employment Tribunal Rules little prospect of success
- section 13 Equality Act 2010 direct discrimination
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.