Case 2303726/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F El Maarfi v Verisure Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2303726/2020
- Decision date
- 18 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A.M.S. Green
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F El Maarfi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal first determined the preliminary disability issue. Mr El Maarfi relied on social anxiety, general anxiety and depression, but the tribunal found that the medical evidence did not establish a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities during his employment with Verisure Services (UK) Limited from 17 June 2019 to 23 March 2020. The evidence showed assessments in August and October 2018 and CBT that ended in January 2019; the tribunal found he was not treated during his employment, and it rejected his attempt to move away from the start date given in his witness statement that his difficulties began on 13 February 2020.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal held that the claimant was not disabled at the material time within Equality Act 2010 section 6, so the direct disability discrimination claim could not proceed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal extended time under Equality Act 2010 section 123(1)(b) so the direct race discrimination claim could proceed; this judgment did not decide liability on the merits. | Upheld | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Equality Act 2010 section 6 disability definition
- Equality Act 2010 section 123(1)(b) just and equitable extension
- Equality Act 2010 section 123(3) continuing act provisions
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble factors
- Southwark London Borough Council v Afolabi
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
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.