Case 3205915/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Molla v London Borough of Hackney — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205915/2021
- Decision date
- 15 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mrs B Saund, Ms S Harwood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Molla
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent directly discriminated against the claimant because of religion, contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, in relation to a comment made during a Return to Work meeting on 8 November 2019 and the subsequent failure to investigate the claimant's complaint about that comment.
The tribunal also found harassment related to religion, contrary to section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, arising from the refusal at that same meeting to allow a phased return to work and four weeks of lighter duties as recommended by occupational health. The tribunal held that it was just and equitable to disapply the primary limitation period so that a remedy could be awarded for those complaints.
All remaining complaints of direct discrimination on grounds of race or religion, harassment related to race or religion, and victimisation were dismissed as not well founded. The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was dismissed upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
7 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | Upheld only in relation to the comment made at the Return to Work meeting on 8 November 2019 and the subsequent failure to investigate the complaint about that comment. | Upheld | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | Upheld in relation to the refusal on 8 November 2019 to grant a phased return to work and four weeks on lighter duties recommended by occupational health. | Upheld | Religion or belief | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the remainder of the complaints of direct discrimination because of race or religion were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the remainder of the complaints of harassment related to race or religion were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Apart from the upheld harassment finding concerning the 8 November 2019 return-to-work arrangements, the remainder of the religion-related harassment complaints were dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Section 13 Equality Act 2010
- Section 26 Equality Act 2010
- Section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- Section 14 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.