Case 2216593/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Najeeb v JP Morgan SE – London Branch — 2025
- Case reference
- 2216593/2023
- Decision date
- 7 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Snelson
- Panel members
- Mr S McLaughlin, Ms J Tombs
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Najeeb
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard Miss S Najeeb in person and counsel for JP Morgan SE - London Branch. It unanimously determined that the claim for equal pay, the complaints of direct sex discrimination, and the complaints of victimisation were not well-founded.
The tribunal also determined that the complaints of direct sex discrimination and victimisation were presented out of time and that it had no jurisdiction to consider them. The proceedings as a whole were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The tribunal determined that the equal pay claim was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal determined that the complaints of direct sex discrimination were not well-founded and also failed because they were presented out of time, leaving the tribunal with no jurisdiction to consider them. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal determined that the complaints of victimisation were not well-founded and also failed because they were presented out of time, leaving the tribunal with no jurisdiction to consider them. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.