Case 3220343/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Y Mohamed v Abbatt Dual Management Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3220343/2020
- Decision date
- 2 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery Representations
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Y Mohamed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 9 December 2021, Employment Judge Emery considered whether Mr Y Mohamed was disabled by reason of migraines during his employment with Abbatt Dual Management Limited, whether his claim form included race discrimination allegations, whether amendment should be allowed, and whether any race claim had little or no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant had worked for about six months as a security officer and said he had been dismissed twice, while the respondent said the principal reason for dismissal was his conduct and that he had not been confirmed in post at the end of probation.
After discussion of the direct race discrimination issue, including the need to show less favourable treatment by comparison with an actual or hypothetical comparator, the claimant said he did not wish to continue with the race discrimination claim. He withdrew it, and the tribunal recorded all race discrimination claims as dismissed on withdrawal. The later hearing was listed to determine liability only, with remedy reserved if the claimant succeeded.
On disability, the respondent accepted that the claimant had a long-term condition of migraine headaches. Taking account of the limited medical records, the disability impact statement, and the claimant's oral evidence, the tribunal found that he was a disabled person by virtue of migraines during his employment. It accepted that the migraines were intermittent but long-term, unpredictable, and capable of having a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities, including the need to lie down in a quiet dark room, difficulty eating, sickness, dizziness, blurred vision, and difficulty communicating.
The tribunal also dealt with disclosure of a medical letter dated 26 June 2021, ordering production of the GP consultation record relating to that letter after the respondent questioned its validity. The judgment did not determine the merits of the disability discrimination claims at this stage; those issues were left for the final hearing listed in 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The claimant withdrew the race discrimination claim after discussion of the need to show less favourable treatment by reference to an actual or hypothetical comparator; the tribunal recorded the race discrimination claims as dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- actual or hypothetical comparator
- Equality Act 2010 s.13 direct discrimination
- Equality Act 2010 s.26 harassment
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.