By James Lenihan, Regional Employment Rights Manager - Member (Partner) & Jazmeer Jackson, Employment Rights Lawyer

Mr N Ahmed V Capital Arches Group Limited

Background 

Mr Ahmed was employed by Capital Arches Group Ltd and brought claims of direct race and religion or belief discrimination, based on alleged conduct by colleagues and a manager in 2018. He claimed that after he refused to join in Ramadan observances, he was subjected to harassment and subsequently reassigned to lobby cleaning duties—treatment he argued was discriminatory. His claim, submitted in October 2022, was nearly four years after the alleged events. 

Key Issues 

Limitation Period and “Conduct Extending Over a Period” 

The Tribunal treated the claims as relating solely to conduct ending in October 2018 and therefore found them out of time under the Equality Act 2010. Mr Ahmed argued that the discriminatory treatment continued until 2021 and should be treated as a continuing act, delaying the start of the limitation period. 

Just and Equitable Extension of Time 

The Tribunal declined to extend time, noting the lengthy delay and lack of credible explanation. It also found significant prejudice to the employer due to the age of the events and the difficulty in tracing witnesses. 

Fairness of Proceedings 

Mr Ahmed argued the hearing was unfair as his manager, Ms Lyan, did not attend to give evidence. However, the Tribunal did not rely on her written statement, and the judge found no procedural unfairness in her absence. 

Outcome 

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed Mr Ahmed’s appeal. It upheld the Tribunal’s decision that the claims related solely to conduct in 2018, and it was not wrong to refuse a time extension. The EAT confirmed that the complaints did not include any continuing conduct or new discriminatory acts after 2018. 

Why This Matters 

This case confirms that where a discrimination claim relates to specific past events—such as a job reassignment—it may be treated as a one-off act with continuing consequences, rather than conduct extending over time. It also reinforces the high threshold for extending time limits in discrimination claims and highlights the importance of clearly identifying continuing acts in the original pleadings.