Case 3203134/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Fatheha v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions — 2025
- Case reference
- 3203134/2022
- Decision date
- 9 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Members
- Panel members
- Ms J Clark, Mr ML Wood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Fatheha
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting unanimously before Employment Judge Moor with members Ms J Clark and Mr ML Wood, heard the case at London East Hearing Centre on 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9 September 2025. Miss S Fatheha brought claims against the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for automatic unfair dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, age, and religion or belief.
The tribunal found that none of the complaints were well-founded. The automatic unfair dismissal complaint did not succeed, and the complaints of sex discrimination, race discrimination, age discrimination, and religion or belief discrimination also did not succeed. The judgment records no monetary award and no separate remedy findings.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment refers to this as an '(automatic) unfair dismissal' complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
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.