Time limits in discrimination claims: EAT refuses late claim

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that it was not just and equitable to extend time for a discrimination claim brought almost four years after the alleged acts occurred. The decision serves as a reminder of the strict approach tribunals may take to time limits, particularly where there has been significant delay.

In Ahmed v Capital Arches, Mr Ahmed brought claims alleging religious discrimination arising from events said to have taken place before October 2018. He alleged that colleagues made unwanted comments about his failure to observe Muslim practices during Ramadan, that he complained about those comments to his manager, and that he was subsequently moved to cleaning duties. Although he remained on those duties until he went off sick in June 2021, the acts complained of had occurred several years earlier.

The EAT upheld the tribunal’s conclusion that the claims were out of time. It rejected the argument that the move to cleaning duties amounted to “conduct extending over a period”. Instead, it was a one-off act with continuing consequences, meaning time began to run from the date the decision was made, not from when its effects ended. As a result, the primary three-month limitation period had long since expired.

The EAT also agreed that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It accepted that allowing the claim to proceed after such a delay would cause significant prejudice to the employer, particularly given the fading of witnesses’ memories. Importantly, the EAT confirmed that the fact a claimant would otherwise have no remedy is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to extend time.

The case underlines the importance for employers of identifying and challenging out-of-time claims at an early stage. It also provides helpful clarification on the distinction between a continuing act and a one-off decision with ongoing consequences — a distinction that frequently arises in discrimination litigation.