Mr A Quais v Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust: 2217785/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2217785/2024
Between
Mr A QuaisClaimantCentral and North West London NHS Foundation TrustRespondent
Before
Employment Judge HendersonDate 11 September 2025
REASONS
[1]This was a Full Merits Hearing (held remotely by video) to determine a claim for direct discrimination on grounds of religion. Conduct of the Hearing Day 1[2]The Hearing started late due to connectivity problems for the Tribunal clerk.[3]There were also problems with the claimant’s access to electronic documents: he said he had problems uploading from the link sent to him by the respondent on 16 June 2025 but had not raised this before today.[4]The respondent’s solicitors re-sent the relevant documents (a Pdf folder sent in instalments of the 237-page Bundle and the witness statements). The claimant acknowledged he had received these and was able to access them.[5]As regards the Agreed Bundle, the claimant wanted to add documents to reflect the “Statutory and Mandatory Training” he had received on joining. He said that this would demonstrate the respondent’s professed commitment to Equality and Fairness values. He said the respondent had refused to add these documents to the bundle.[6]The respondent said that the documents as requested by the claimant did not exist in the format he described.[7]I clarified with the respondent that there was no dispute that the Trust did profess its commitment to Equality and Fairness and maintained that it met those standards and values. Accordingly, there was no need to include the documentation requested by the claimant, and the point was not in dispute. The claimant accepted this.[8]The Hearing adjourned at 11.40 to allow time to read the key documents specified by the parties and the witness statements and to include a lunch break.[9]The Hearing resumed at 1.20 pm and the claimant gave his evidence in chief on oath, adopting his written witness statement (dated 24 April 2024) as his evidence. His evidence concluded at 3.25pm after crossexamination and questions from the Tribunal. There was no reexamination.[10]A key issue is whether Mr Babs Omosebi (the respondent’s Finance Process Manager) had been aware that it was the Festival of Eid on 10 April 2024 when he sent an email to the claimant, which formed the alleged act of religious discrimination.[11]There was no evidence before the Tribunal of any Calendars within the respondent’s organisation showing religious festivals (of any denomination). The Tribunal ordered that by the start of the resumed Hearing at 10am on 10 September 2025, the respondent produce a copy of such document, or an explanation of why it could not be produced. This should be sent to the Tribunal Clerk and also to the claimant.[12]The Hearing concluded at 3.35 pm Day 2[13]On the morning of 10 September, the respondent sent four documents (Erosters for staff in Mr Omosebi’s team for February, March and April 2024 and EDI calendar showing religious festivals for 2025, none was available for 2024).[14]The Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Babs Omosebi (Finance Process Manager) who adopted his written statement as his evidence in chief. His evidence ran from 10.15 to 12.15 and comprised cross-examination by the claimant and questions from the Judge. There was no re-examination.[15]It was agreed that the parties would exchange their written submissions by 1pm and the Hearing would resume at 1.45 for the submissions to be delivered[16]The parties made their oral submissions based on their written submissions. I adjourned at 2.30 to consider my decision which I gave with oral reasons at 3.45 pm. The claimant requested written reasons.
The Issues
[17]At the start of the Hearing, I clarified with the parties that the issues were as set out in the Case Management Order of EJ Bunting of 27 February 2024. It was agreed that the Tribunal would look at the issue of liability only. Time limits[18]The ET was submitted on 03 April 2024, which is before the date of the act complained of (namely 10 April 2024). The respondent seeks to argue that the question of time limits (as set out below) should be argued at the final hearing, namely that the claimant’s email of 05 July 2024 is not an application to amend. Instead, it was the email of 04 December 2024, which was more than three months after the act complained of.[19]Were the discrimination and victimisation complaints made within the time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA)? The Tribunal will decide: - Was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months (plus early conciliation extension) of the act to which the complaint relates? - If not, was there conduct extending over a period? - If so, was the claim made to the Tribunal within three months of the end of that period? - If not, were the claims made within a further period that the Tribunal thinks is just and equitable?[20]The Tribunal will decide: - Why were the complaints not made to the Tribunal in time? - In any event, is it just and equitable in all the circumstances to extend time? Direct religious discrimination (Equality Act 2010 section 13)[21]The claimant is a Muslim, and he compares his treatment with people who are not of the Islamic faith.[22]Did the respondent do the following things: - Send an email to the claimant of 10 April 2024? - Was that less favourable treatment because the 10 April was the Festival of Eid?[23]The Tribunal will decide whether the claimant was treated worse than someone else was treated. There must be no material difference between their circumstances and the claimant’s. - The claimant says he was treated worse than non-Muslims. If so, was it because of his religion? - Did the respondent’s treatment amount to a detriment/less favourable treatment? Findings of Fact
Background
[24]The claimant was employed by the respondent, an NHS Trust, as a Team Administrator, from 15 January 2021 until either 01 July 2021 or 01 October 2021 (the date is in dispute but is not material).[25]Early conciliation started on 24 January 2024 and ended on 06 March 2024. The claim form was presented on 03 April 2024.[26]The claim, as original presented, raised two different claims: - The failure to give him a reference in a reasonable period time in September / October 2021, and - Repeated bullying and/or harassment by the respondent’s finance team starting on or about January 2024.[27]In relation to the first claim, the claimant accepted at the Case Management Hearing (CMH) on 27 February 2025 that the delay in giving him a reference was motivated by personal animosity towards him, but this was not due to a protected characteristic.[28]The background of the second claim is that it was said that the respondent had overpaid the claimant the sum of £4,160.76 during the course of his employment. The claimant complains that over a period of months (starting around January 2024, - long after his employment ended) he was subject to several instances of bullying and harassment. But again, at the CMH in February 2025 he accepted that this was not due to a protected characteristic.[29]Accordingly, at the CMH both of the claims were struck out.[30]However, the claimant had also made reference to an email sent to him on 10 April 2024 by Babs Omosebi. The claimant stated that it was deliberately sent to him on Eid as an act of religious discrimination. That email post-dated the ET1 and was first raised by way of “clarification” in an email from the claimant to the Tribunal on 05 July 2024 (page 34)[31]At the CMH on 27 February 2025 an application to amend his claim to include this allegation of direct religious discrimination was allowed. As noted in the Issues above, this was the only claim that is permitted to proceed.[32]There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the alleged overpayment is properly due to the respondent. However, it is not for the Tribunal to decide that point. The sole claim for determination is the alleged act of religious discrimination on 10 April 2024. Claimant’s evidence Timing of the amendment application[33]The first question for determination is whether the claimant’s email of 5 July 2024 (page 34) is an application to amend his claim to include a claim for direct religious discrimination. If it is, then the claim would be in time. If it is not and if no amendment application was made before 9 July 2024, then the claim is out of time and the Tribunal will have to consider whether to extend time on the just and equitable ground.[34]The claimant’s email of 5 July 2024 is essentially a complaint about his perceived harassment by the respondent for repayment of an alleged overpayment of wages of £4160. There are some rambling references to other incidental matters concerning the retention of emails. The claimant complains that Mr Omosebi is “incredibly hostile” towards him and does not accept or understand the claimant’s personal/financial circumstances and has threatened to send in bailiffs to recover the debt.[35]In the context of this, the claimant then complains that Mr Omosebi sent him an email on 10 April 2024 (after the ET1 was issued) which was the Festival of Eid. The claimant believes this was done on purpose to spoil his celebrations and led to the claimant being distressed and suicidal. The claimant accepted in his oral evidence that he had not made any reference to religious discrimination in this email.[36]Further, at the CMH in February 2025 the claimant accepted that his general allegations of bullying and harassment did not relate to any protected characteristic and the email of 5 July 2024 appears to be very much in the same vein.[37]I find that the email of 5 July 2024 was not an amendment application. The discrimination claim is therefore out of time, and I will go on to consider whether the claimant has shown that the just and equitable discretion to extend time should be exercised in his favour. Discretion to extend time on “Just and Equitable” Grounds[38]The claimant made no reference in his witness statement to the reasons why he had not put in his amendment application prior to 30 January 2025. In his oral evidence in cross examination, he said that he had only known about the need for an amendment following the Case Management Hearing with EJ Jack in December 2024, which reinforces the conclusion that the email of 5 July 2024 was not an amendment application.[39]The claimant was asked about whether he had taken legal advice. He first said he had never spoken to a solicitor but then said that he contacted POP Law about 6 months ago (around March 2025). He was referred to an email of 14 November 2021 (page 149/50) in which he mentioned talking to a solicitor. He said this was a reference to a friend of his who was a corporate lawyer who had told him to ensure that everything was recorded in writing.[40]The claimant’s evidence on timing was not always consistent, but he did make references to taking legal advice and he accepted that he had received some assistance from POP Law. He said that FRU had not been given enough notice to be able to represent him at this Hearing, but when it was pointed out that he had known about this Hearing since 27 February 2025, he accepted that he could have contacted them sooner.[41]The claimant said he had tried to talk to the CAB but had only managed to do this once – he said other cases had higher priority. He had contacted solicitors’ firms but was told that legal aid was not available for Tribunal cases. He accepted in his oral evidence that he had not done any online or other research but said that he had not been able to “think straight” at that time. There was no medical evidence produced to show that the claimant had been unwell or under medical treatment.[42]I find that the claimant has not provided any or any adequate explanation as to why he did not lodge his amendment application earlier. The claimant made no reference in his witness statement or submissions or in his oral evidence to any suggestion that the discriminatory treatment was a continuing act. It was very clear that the complaint related solely to the fact that the email was sent on Eid in 2024. Email of 10 April 2024 (page 175)[43]The claimant’s case is that the sending of this email on the Feast Day of Eid was of itself a discriminatory act on religious grounds. The email from Mr Omosebi noted that the claimant had not agreed to offers for a repayment by instalment plan and that his debt had been assigned to an external debt collection agency, and they would take all steps to recover the money, which could include bailiffs.[44]The claimant said he had told the respondent that he was on holiday over Ramadan and Eid. He referred to his email of 4 March 2024 (page 160). This email was sent to the Salary Overpayments Team for the respondent but not specifically copied to Mr Omosebi. Further the email simply said, “From this Monday, I'll be busy for a month and ideally would not want to have to worry about this”.[45]The claimant accepted in his oral evidence there was no reference to Ramadan or to Eid being on 10 April. He also accepted that one month from 4 March would end on 4 April. In any event despite his statement in the 4 March email, the claimant did engage in email correspondence with the respondent (including Mr Omobesi) through March 2024. The claimant said in his oral evidence that there was no requirement that Muslims should not work during Ramadan, but only to fast during the daylight hours.[46]The claimant said that on Eid, it was a celebratory day; observers should pray 6 times a day and give praises to Allah, they should stop working and spend time with their family.[47]Given this evidence, I asked the claimant why he had looked at his emails on 10 April if he was celebrating Eid. He said he had received celebratory emails from family and friends. He accepted that he could see who emails were from before he opened them, he said he wanted to see what the email from Mr Omosebi he was about as liked to clear things up and that to do so was not a sin. He hoped it might be good news.[48]However, the claimant also accepted that the respondent had previously indicated that they would have to use external debt collectors if he did not pay the alleged debt, so the content of the email should not have come as a surprise to the claimant. The claimant knew the dispute about his repayment of money to the respondent was a long standing one, it was not plausible that he thought the email would contain good news. Mr Omosebi’s evidence[49]Mr Omosebi’s evidence was consistent: he said he did not know the claimant was Muslim. He had not seen his starter form (page 111/112), which did record his religion. This would have been seen by HR.[50]Mr Omosebi knew the claimant’s full name and he accepted that some people may assume a person’s religion from their name/code of dress, but he had not done so as regards the claimant. As he worked in the Finance Team he had never met the claimant.[51]Mr Omosebi said he had not seen (or been aware of) the respondent’s EDI Festival calendars. He had not seen any such calendar in 2024, and he had only seen the 2025 Calendar at today’s Hearing.[52]He did not accept that the screensaver on the respondent’s computers showed religious festivals. The claimant did not have any evidence to support his claim that this was the case. I also note that the claimant had left the respondent’s employment in 2021 and so could not give evidence of the position as at 2024.[53]Mr Omosebi said he had not known that 10 April 2024 was Eid. It was a Wednesday, a working day and not a Bank Holiday. He could not recall exactly why he contacted the claimant on 10 April after his last communication on 15 March, but he said he may have had some other urgent matters to deal with and so dealt with them all at the same time.[54]The claimant suggested in cross examination that Mr Omosebi should have realised that it was Ramadan and Eid because a member of his team (a student placement) had taken holiday for 2 weeks in March 2024 and on 10 April. Mr Omosebi said that he did not know (and did not ask) the reasons why people in his team took holiday. It was granted depending on the level of staff cover available and no other reason.[55]The claimant appeared to suggest that Mr Omosebi should have realised that the claimant was taking holiday for religious reasons, but as was pointed out to him, he was no longer an employee of the respondent in 2024, and his email of 4 March did not mention his religion or the reason for his being away for a month.[56]Mr Omosebi said that as a manager in the respondent organisation, he received EDI training about every 12 months. He accepted that the area around his office was a multi-cultural area, and he accepted that from his general knowledge he knew that Muslims had a period of fasting over Ramadan, which culminated in the Eid Festival, but repeated that he was not aware of the exact dates in 2024.[57]Even if Mr Omosebi had been aware of the date of Eid, here was no evidence presented to suggest that Mr Omosebi sent the email on 10 April out of spite or to deliberately pressurise the claimant because of his religious observances on that day.[58]I asked Mr Omosebi if he would have acted in the same way towards any other outstanding debtor in the same circumstances if they had been a non-Muslim. He said he would have done so. It was part of his job to ensure that debts were paid. The claimant’s debt had been outstanding since 2021, it was a working day for him, and not a Bank Holiday and he would have acted that way regardless of the debtor’s characteristics. I had no reason not to accept Mr Omosebi’s evidence on this point. Conclusions Time Limits
Conclusions
[59]I refer to section 123 of the EqA and to the question of the just and equitable ground to extend time. The case of Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link 2003 IRLR 434, CA, looked at when tribunals should consider exercising such discretion and said a Tribunal cannot hear a complaint unless the applicant convinces it that it is just and equitable to extend time, so the exercise of the discretion is, to some extent, the exception rather than the rule. Also, the burden of proof is on the claimant to show why the time should be extended.[60]I understand that the claimant is a litigant in person, but he had not made any attempt to explain the delay even in lay terms. Also, the claimant does appear to have had some legal advice. The claimant had not presented evidence to the Tribunal as to why time should be extended on the just and equitable basis.[61]Accordingly, the Tribunal does not exercise its discretion to extend time, and the claim is out of time.[62]However, if I were to be incorrect on this point, based on the evidence presented at the Hearing the claimant would not succeed in establishing direct discrimination on religious grounds. Direct Discrimination[63]I refer to the Findings of Fact set out above: even if the claim were in time, the claimant has not shown that the respondent (acting via Mr Omosebi) had discriminated against him on the grounds of his religion.[64]I note that it was entirely the claimant’s choice to open his emails from Mr Omosebi on 10 April 2024. If he had not done so he would not have seen the email until the following day or later. Mr Omosebi had no control over when the claimant read his email.[65]I refer to the cases cited by the claimant in his submissions. He said that he was only aware of one of these cases and that the others had been inserted by POP Law.[66]I note that from the brief summaries, it appears that the cases cited are on very different facts, which suggest a pattern of discriminatory behaviour or specific refusals for religious holidays. That is different from the facts of this case, where the discriminatory act was solely the timing of the email sent on the Eid Festival.[67]I also note, which had not been mentioned in any of the Case Management Discussions, that given the facts of this case, the claim made by the claimant does not appear to fall within section 39 EqA - Part 5, which relates to discrimination claims in the Work context. The claimant was no longer an employee of the respondent, and the act complained of did not relate to offering the claimant employment; the terms of his employment or to dismissing him.[68]As this point was not raised before me, I do not need to make a finding on it – but it is another possible reason why any claim for direct religious discrimination may not succeed.[69]The claims are dismissed Approved by: