Case 2601613/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. F Shaheen v Bridge2Future Care Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2601613/2022
- Decision date
- 13 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap Members
- Panel members
- Mr. Z Sher, Mrs. C Hatcliff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. F Shaheen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims for automatically unfair dismissal contrary to Section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996, detriment contrary to Section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996, and direct discrimination relying on religion or belief. The respondent denied the claims, and the tribunal recorded that all claims failed and were dismissed.
In the discrimination findings visible in the provided text, the tribunal did not accept some factual allegations and found no evidence that the treatment complained of was because the claimant was Muslim. The tribunal also recorded a postscript that, although the claim failed, the respondent's process leading to dismissal had not been conducted in the manner the claimant might reasonably have expected.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of automatically unfair dismissal contrary to Section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | All complaints of detriment contrary to Section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | All complaints of direct discrimination relying on the protected characteristic of religion or belief failed and were dismissed. The provided text is truncated and one later passage appears to refer to direct race discrimination, but the issues and judgment state religion or belief. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
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.