Havva Sari v Orchardside School — 2026

Following a preliminary hearing on 3 June 2026, Employment Judge Annand struck out Havva Sari’s claims against Orchardside School for direct age and race discrimination and harassment related to age and race. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of establishing discriminatory conduct extending over a period ending on or after 27 August 2024, or that it would be just and equitable to extend time. The decision concerned limitation, not the substantive merits of the allegations.

Sari worked as a teacher from 5 September 2022 to 19 November 2024. She contacted Acas on 26 November 2024 and submitted her claim on 22 January 2025, following an early conciliation certificate issued on 7 January 2025. The tribunal identified 27 August 2024 as the primary limitation date. Her discrimination and harassment complaints concerned three successive teaching assistants who worked with her between September 2022 and May 2024. The allegations included preventing her from speaking, taking over lessons, ignoring her and failing to help. She also relied on questions about retirement from the first two assistants and the third assistant’s objection to her speaking Turkish to students.

Applying the strike-out guidance, the judge took Sari’s case at its highest by assuming that the alleged conduct occurred and that the first two assistants were friends. Even on that basis, the judge found no reasonable prospect of establishing a continuing discriminatory state of affairs. The assistants worked with Sari at different times, and her contemporaneous complaints about the first two concerned different conduct. Their friendship was insufficient to establish the necessary connection. The third assistant was recruited externally and initially had a very good relationship with Sari, which further weakened the claimed continuity.

Even if the allegations could form one course of conduct, the last alleged discrimination and harassment occurred in May 2024 and remained three months out of time. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of linking that conduct to the later suspension and dismissal process. None of the three assistants was present at the incident leading to dismissal or made the decisions to suspend or dismiss Sari.

The tribunal considered the wide discretion to extend time on just and equitable grounds but found no reasonable prospect of a successful application. Sari had not explained why she failed to bring these complaints in time. Her reference to poor mental health appeared to concern the period after suspension and dismissal. Her account of sickness absence in May 2024 did not suggest that poor mental health prevented her from bringing a claim, and she returned to work on 24 June 2024. Although she had complained about the assistants, she had not alleged age or race discrimination, so the school had not been put on notice of those allegations. Her explanations at the hearing focused on safety concerns and the reasons she believed she had been suspended and dismissed.