Case 4102251/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Haani Elseed v Common Services Agency — 2023
- Case reference
- 4102251/2023
- Decision date
- 20 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sutherland
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Haani Elseed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered whether Mr Haani Elseed was disabled and whether parts of his race discrimination claim were in time. It found that he was not disabled under section 6 Equality Act 2010. Although it accepted that he had two lengthy periods of sickness absence after seeing a supervisor at work, it found no reliable medical evidence of anxiety or any other mental impairment, and it concluded that the effects on sleep, socialising and studies were substantial but brief and did not support a finding of a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities.
On limitation, the tribunal held that the race discrimination complaints concerning 2014, 2016 and 2019 were discrete acts separated by years and different decision-makers, so they were not capable of being treated as a continuing act. It accepted that there was some connection between the 2014 complaint and the 2016 warning, and between the 2016 and 2019 work-location decisions, but found no material connection to the 2022 dismissal decision. It also refused to extend time on the just and equitable basis, noting that the claimant knew race discrimination was unlawful, had access to legal advice, and had not shown a sufficient reason for the delay.
The judgment therefore dismissed the disability discrimination claim and dismissed the race discrimination complaints other than the dismissal allegation. The complaint that the 20 October 2022 dismissal was race discrimination was not determined at this hearing and was listed to proceed, together with the unfair dismissal claim, to the final hearing. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010. It held that his work-related stress and absences did not amount to a mental impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal held that the race discrimination complaints about the 2014, 2016 and 2019 events were presented outside the statutory time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The allegation that the 20 October 2022 dismissal was because of race was not determined at this hearing and was listed to proceed to the final hearing. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- Equality Act 2010 section 6
- Equality Act 2010 section 123
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP
- Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council
- SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Comr
- Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust
- Parr v MSR Partners LLP
- Aziz v FDA
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Kumari v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
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.