Case 3321298/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Abdullah (in person) For the v Krispy Kreme UK Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3321298/2021
- Decision date
- 17 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cowen
- Venue
- Watford Tribunal
- Panel members
- Dr C Whitehouse, Mr K Chester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Abdullah (in person) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant's race discrimination and harassment allegations, and her religious discrimination and harassment allegations, arising before 17 June 2021 were presented outside the applicable time limit. It found that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit, so those claims were dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's race discrimination, harassment, religious discrimination and harassment claims so far as they related to her dismissal. The judgment records no monetary award or remedy.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Race discrimination allegations before 17 June 2021 were presented out of time; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. The race discrimination claim in relation to the claimant's dismissal was also dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Race harassment allegations before 17 June 2021 were presented out of time; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. The harassment claim in relation to the claimant's dismissal was also dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Religious discrimination allegations before 17 June 2021 were presented out of time; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. The religious discrimination claim in relation to the claimant's dismissal was also dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | Religious harassment allegations before 17 June 2021 were presented out of time; the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. The harassment claim in relation to the claimant's dismissal was also dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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
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.