In Mokhammad v General Medical Council, a doctor brought a direct race discrimination claim arising from disciplinary proceedings before the General Medical Council (GMC).
Following an incident involving aggressive behaviour, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal found that the claimant had committed serious misconduct but that his fitness to practise was not impaired. It nevertheless issued him with a warning, which remained published on the GMC's website for two years.
The warning was subsequently quashed following judicial review. The claimant then brought employment tribunal proceedings alleging that the decision to issue the warning, and its continued publication on the GMC's website, amounted to direct race discrimination.
The employment tribunal held that the claim was out of time. It treated the relevant act as occurring when the warning was first published and concluded that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal.
It held that the tribunal had failed to consider whether the claimant's complaint related to conduct extending over a period within the meaning of section 123(3)(a) of the Equality Act 2010. The continued publication of the warning on the GMC's website could amount to an ongoing state of affairs rather than a one-off act. If so, time would begin to run only when that conduct ended, namely, when the warning was removed from the website.
The EAT observed that employment lawyers...
The UAE AI Office has issued a statement debunking social media claims that a government website is fraudulent and confirming that it is an authentic website belonging to an official government en...