Case 2300049/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms F Ali v Home Office — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300049/2021
- Decision date
- 10 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harrington Appearances
- Venue
- Remotely
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms F Ali
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing concerning the Respondent's application to strike out the pregnancy discrimination claim as out of time, and the Claimant's application to amend. The Claimant's original ET1 complained that a job offer made on 16 October 2019 had been withdrawn by email on 22 January 2020, which she identified as pregnancy discrimination.
The Tribunal found that the pregnancy discrimination complaint was outside the primary three-month limitation period. It accepted that the Claimant had mistakenly believed she had included a longer narrative in her ET1 about the grievance and appeal process, and considered the factual context including her childbirth, health, childcare circumstances, internal grievance, and the balance of prejudice. The Tribunal concluded it was just and equitable to extend time, so the pregnancy discrimination claim could proceed.
The Tribunal also allowed the Claimant's application to amend her claim to add complaints of sex discrimination and disability discrimination concerning a 13 January 2022 decision that she did not meet the essential criteria for a managed move to a Criminal and Financial Investigations role. The Respondent was neutral on the amendment application, and the case was to be listed for a telephone case management hearing and later final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | At an open preliminary hearing, the Tribunal held that the complaint about withdrawal of a job offer on 22 January 2020 was presented outside the primary limitation period, but extended time on just and equitable grounds so the claim could proceed. There was no merits determination. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The Tribunal allowed the Claimant's application to amend to add a complaint of sex discrimination arising from the Respondent's decision communicated on 13 January 2022 that she did not meet the essential criteria for a managed move. There was no merits determination. | Other | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal allowed the Claimant's application to amend to add a complaint of disability discrimination arising from the Respondent's decision communicated on 13 January 2022 that she did not meet the essential criteria for a managed move. There was no merits determination. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010
- s.123(3) Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- Aziz v FDA
- Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Department of Constitutional Affairs v Jones
- Southwark London Borough Council v Afolabi
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Marshall
- Apelogun-Gabriels v Lambeth London Borough Council
- s.33 Limitation Act 1980
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.