Redundancy and racial nickname claims dismissed as out of time
An employment tribunal dismissed claims of unfair dismissal and racial harassment from two former employees of the UAE Embassy, finding that their discrimination complaints were brought too late and that a redundancy selection based on performance was not tainted by race.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- Mr Burke was employed as a driver from 1 December 2002 until 30 June 2020.
- On 30 June 2020, the Embassy made 15 employees redundant due to budget cuts caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
- Mr Burke alleged he was routinely called 'Jamaican Mafia' by Mr Berkane.
- Mr Burke's claim for racial harassment based on the nickname was dismissed as out of time.
- Mr Burke's claim that his redundancy dismissal was race discrimination failed because the decision-maker, Mr Al Mazmi, had no knowledge of the alleged nickname and selected him based on performance concerns.
- Ms Hodzik's claims of race and sex discrimination and harassment were dismissed as out of time or not made out.
Timeline
-
Mr Burke started employment
Mr Burke was appointed as a car driver for the Embassy.
-
Ms Hodzik started employment
Ms Hodzik began working for the Embassy.
-
Mr Berkane promoted
Mr Berkane was promoted to manager, allegedly passing over Mr Burke.
-
Ms Hodzik complained about pay
Ms Hodzik wrote to the Ambassador complaining about her salary and alleged discrimination.
-
Ms Hodzik signed new contract
Ms Hodzik signed a contract with a corrected gross salary; net pay remained the same.
-
Ms Hodzik's meeting with Mr Al Mazmi
Mr Al Mazmi told Ms Hodzik she could not use a new job title; she alleged derogatory comments.
-
Ambassador's comment to Ms Hodzik
The Ambassador asked Ms Hodzik why she worked at the Embassy if she was not Arab.
-
Both claimants made redundant
Mr Burke and Ms Hodzik were dismissed by reason of redundancy along with 13 others.
-
Mr Burke presented claim
Mr Burke filed his employment tribunal claim.
-
Ms Hodzik presented claim
Ms Hodzik filed her employment tribunal claim.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimants' discrimination and harassment claims were brought within the three-month time limit, and if not, whether it was just and equitable to extend time. For the senior driver, it also considered whether his redundancy dismissal and the alleged use of a racial nickname amounted to race discrimination or harassment.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims of race and sex discrimination and harassment, as well as the unfair dismissal claim.
- The claims based on the nickname 'Jamaican Mafia' were out of time because the alleged harassment ended more than three months before the claim was filed, and there was no continuing act linking it to the redundancy.
- The redundancy dismissal was not discriminatory because the decision-maker selected the senior driver based on performance concerns, not his race, and had no knowledge of the nickname.
- The second claimant's claims were also out of time, and it was not just and equitable to extend time for any of the late claims.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Time limits in discrimination claims are strict — you generally have three months from the last act of discrimination to bring a claim, and linking separate incidents as a 'continuing act' is difficult.
- If you are considering a claim, notify ACAS early conciliation promptly to preserve your right to bring a tribunal claim.
- A redundancy selection based on objective performance criteria is unlikely to be discriminatory unless you can show the decision-maker was influenced by a protected characteristic.
- Allegations of harassment that are not reported or challenged at the time may be hard to revive later if the claim is out of time.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the strict time limits that apply to discrimination claims in the employment tribunal. Both claimants alleged that they had been subjected to racial harassment and discrimination over a period of years, but the tribunal found that most of the alleged incidents occurred more than three months before they filed their claims. The senior driver, who had worked for the embassy for 18 years, claimed he was routinely called 'Jamaican Mafia' by a manager, but the last such comment was made well before the three-month window. The tribunal rejected the argument that the nickname and the redundancy were part of a 'continuing act' of harassment, meaning the claim was out of time.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimants could have brought their claims sooner. The senior driver was aware of the nickname for years but did not raise a formal grievance or bring a claim until after his dismissal. If he had acted earlier, the tribunal might have considered the merits of the harassment claim. For the second claimant, the tribunal noted that she had complained about pay and treatment in 2017 but did not bring a claim until 2020. The delay meant that many of her allegations were too old to be considered.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that employees cannot wait until a dismissal to bring forward historic discrimination complaints. The tribunal will carefully examine whether separate incidents are truly part of a 'continuing act' or are isolated events that are out of time. It also shows that a redundancy selection based on performance, even if the employee has a long service record, will not automatically be discriminatory unless there is evidence that the decision-maker was motivated by a protected characteristic. The embassy's decision to select the senior driver for redundancy was based on performance concerns, and the tribunal accepted that the decision-maker did not know about the nickname, so the dismissal was not tainted by race.
Similar cases
Late claim form costs employee unfair dismissal case despite discrimination claims proceeding
A senior customer service adviser with less than two years' service had his unfair dismissal claim thrown out for being presented 4.5 months late, but his discrimination claims will proceed to a full hearing.
Deputy Design Director loses redundancy and discrimination claims against Greenland UK
A deputy design director who brought claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and unlawful deduction from wages after being made redundant has lost all her claims at the London Central Employment Tribunal.
Race and sex discrimination claims dismissed as out of time: what constitutes a continuing act
A tribunal dismissed a manager's race and sex discrimination claims because they were presented too late, finding that separate promotion decisions were not part of a continuing act and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
Redundancy dismissal and victimisation claims fail: law enforcement officer loses tribunal case
A law enforcement officer with four years' service was fairly dismissed by redundancy and his claims of race and age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation were dismissed by the tribunal.