Case 1806596/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Ahmed First v The Priestley Academy Trust Second Respondent: Sian Porter HELD by: CVP — 2022
- Case reference
- 1806596/2021
- Decision date
- 23 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Ahmed First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mrs S Ahmed, was found to be a long-serving early years practitioner at Margaret McMillan Primary School. She said she had been discriminated against on the grounds of race and religion or belief by the second respondent, Sian Porter, on four occasions between September/October 2019 and October 2020. For the hearing, the tribunal did not need to determine the detail of those allegations because the issues before it were time-limit issues under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal found that the last possible date for bringing the claims in time was 31 October 2020. The claimant did not issue her claim until 2 December 2021. It accepted that she had health problems, including periods off sick for anxiety and depression, but found that the first alleged incident was in September/October 2019 and that there was no sickness absence until 7 February 2021. It also noted that there were substantial periods when she was at work after the incidents complained of, including from 13 May 2021 to 3 December 2021.
The tribunal rejected the claim that the delay was justified by lack of knowledge of her rights or by waiting for the grievance process. It found that she knew from Unison in July 2021 that she could bring a tribunal claim, and that with her husband's help she could have issued earlier. It also took into account that she had made a grievance application headed with the word "racism", which the tribunal said counted against her in relation to knowledge of her rights.
On all the circumstances, the tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time. Both the race discrimination claim and the religion or belief discrimination claim were therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Dismissed because the claim was out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Dismissed because the claim was out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable to extend time
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.