Case 3305408/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Yasin v Boehringer Ingelheim Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305408/2022
- Decision date
- 31 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr D Wilson, Ms B Hillon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Yasin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a practising Muslim of Asian origin, alleged sixteen acts of less favourable treatment because of race and/or religion or belief. The allegations ranged from unsuccessful applications for MSL roles and performance management issues through to disciplinary proceedings, dismissal, appeal, and an allegation concerning redundancy pay.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not shown the something more required to shift the burden of proof in respect of direct race or religion or belief discrimination. It accepted the respondent's evidence for the reasons for the key decisions considered, including the disciplinary outcome, and found that none of the direct discrimination claims succeeded.
On time limits, allegation fourteen was in time, allegations three to thirteen and fifteen to sixteen were out of time but time was extended on a just and equitable basis, and allegations one and two were out of time with no extension. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction over allegations one and two, but in any event dismissed the direct discrimination complaints overall.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The complaints of direct race discrimination were not well-founded and were dismissed. Allegations one and two were also out of time and not extended, so the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over those allegations. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The complaints of direct discrimination on grounds of religion or belief were not well-founded and were dismissed. Allegations one and two were also out of time and not extended, so the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over those allegations. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
17 references- Equality Act 2010 section 13
- Equality Act 2010 section 23(1)
- Equality Act 2010 section 39(2)
- Equality Act 2010 section 123
- Equality Act 2010 section 136
- burden of proof
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Concentrix CVG Intelligent Contact Ltd v Obi
- Barton v Investec Securities Ltd
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd
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.