Case 2405876/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs F Amin v First West Yorkshire Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2405876/2020
- Decision date
- 15 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hill REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs F Amin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Hill heard the case in Manchester on 22 June 2021. The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim because it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. The tribunal also refused and dismissed the claimant's application to include a discrimination claim on grounds of religion and belief.
The remaining discrimination claims were dismissed as out of time: sex discrimination and direct discrimination on the grounds of race/colour. The race/colour harassment claim, the flexible working claim, and the claim for 'other payments' were all dismissed upon withdrawal. No order for costs was made and the judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The application to include a discrimination claim on grounds of religion and belief was refused and dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination on the grounds of race/colour was dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The race/colour harassment claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Flexible working | The flexible working claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The claim for 'other payments' was dismissed upon withdrawal; the judgment does not specify a more precise legal label. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.