Case 2600124/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Mohamed Saad v University of Nottingham Record of an attended Hearing at the Employment Tribunal Audio Recorded by CVP — 2026
- Case reference
- 2600124/2022
- Decision date
- 16 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton Members
- Venue
- Nottingham Heard
- Panel members
- D Newton, H Andrews
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr Mohamed Saad
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Dr Mohamed Saad, applied in July 2021 for a post of Assistant Professor in Physics and Astronomy with the University of Nottingham. He brought claims of direct discrimination on the grounds of race and/or religion under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, identifying himself as a Black African Muslim of Egyptian national origin. The claims concerned three decisions: not being shortlisted for interview, not being moved from a reserve list onto the shortlist after two candidates withdrew, and not being selected for the post.
The Tribunal, comprising Employment Judge Broughton with members D Newton and H Andrews, upheld the first two complaints, finding that the respondent's decisions not to shortlist the claimant and not to move him from the reserve list onto the shortlist were well founded as direct discrimination on the grounds of race and/or religion. The Tribunal dismissed the third complaint, concerning non-selection for the post itself, finding that the evidence did not support a conclusion on a balance of probabilities that the claimant would have been appointed at interview, particularly given the claimant did not cross-examine on the interview process and there were material differences between the successful candidate's application and others.
The Tribunal noted that its decision on the third complaint should not be read as an endorsement of the respondent's application of its policies or its decision to withhold information from a candidate. A separate remedy hearing will be held to determine compensation in respect of the two successful complaints. The £660,000 figure noted by Layer 1 does not appear as an award in the liability judgment and no monetary award is made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination on grounds of race and/or religion for not shortlisting the claimant for interview for the Assistant Professor in Physics and Astronomy post. Tribunal found this complaint well founded. Remedy to be determined at a separate hearing. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination on grounds of race and/or religion for not shortlisting the claimant. The judgment framed the discrimination claim as 'race and/or religion', so this is recorded alongside the race claim. Remedy to be determined at a separate hearing. | Upheld | Religion or belief | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination on grounds of race and/or religion for not moving the claimant from the reserve list onto the shortlist when two shortlisted candidates withdrew. Well founded and succeeds. Remedy to be determined at a separate hearing. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination on grounds of race and/or religion for not moving the claimant from the reserve list onto the shortlist. Well founded and succeeds. Remedy to be determined at a separate hearing. | Upheld | Religion or belief | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination on grounds of race and/or religion for not selecting the claimant for the Post. Tribunal found no evidence on a balance of probabilities that the claimant would have been appointed at interview and dismissed this complaint. |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010
- Rule 37/38 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 39 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.