McDonald's Worker Loses Discrimination Appeal Over Time Limit
Mr. Ahmed's discrimination claim against Capital Arches Group, regarding incidents in 2018, was dismissed as it was filed too late. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the original decision.
• public
Discrimination Claim Against McDonald's Franchise Dismissed
A former employee of a McDonald's franchise, Capital Arches Group Limited, has lost his appeal at the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) after his claims of race and religion discrimination were initially dismissed by an Employment Tribunal.
Mr. N Ahmed brought the case, Ahmed v Capital Arches Group Limited [2025] EAT 133, alleging discriminatory treatment during his employment. The central issue was whether the claim was brought within the statutory time limit. The original claim, presented in October 2022, concerned alleged conduct primarily occurring around July-October 2018.
Key Events and Tribunal Findings
Mr. Ahmed started working at a London McDonald’s restaurant on 18 May 2018. His employment later transferred to Capital Arches Group around 1 October 2018. He claimed that he faced discrimination from Bengali Muslim colleagues in July 2018 when he did not participate in their religious activities during Ramadan. He further alleged that after complaining to his business manager, Celine Lyan, she moved him to cleaning duties in October 2018, which he saw as detrimental.
Employment Judge Klimov had originally ruled that all of Mr. Ahmed's complaints were presented outside the allowed time frame, and that it wasn't just and equitable to extend that time. The judge noted the considerable delay of nearly four years after the limitation period expired and found Mr. Ahmed’s explanations for the delay unconvincing.
EAT Upholds Original Decision
The EAT, presided over by His Honour Judge Auerbach, upheld the Employment Tribunal's decision. The appeal focused on three key grounds: the correct date when time began to run, the assessment of prejudice to the respondent, and the fairness of the trial.
The EAT determined that the relevant discriminatory conduct concluded in October 2018 with the change in Mr. Ahmed's duties, and that there was no ongoing discriminatory pattern extending to July 2021, when he went on long-term sick leave. The Tribunal also found that allowing the claim to proceed would be highly prejudicial to Capital Arches Group, as memories fade, and key witnesses (former colleagues) were no longer employed by the company.
Fair Trial Concerns Addressed
Mr. Ahmed also raised concerns about the fairness of the hearing, particularly regarding the absence of Ms. Lyan, his line manager, as a witness. However, the EAT noted that the respondent did not rely upon Ms. Lyan as a witness and didn't rely upon her witness statement that had been tabled prior to an earlier hearing, and neither did the tribunal rely upon that statement. Therefore, this ground of appeal was also rejected.
Ultimately, the EAT dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the original tribunal’s decision.
Read the entire judgement here: Mr N Ahmed v Capital Arches Group Ltd [2025] EAT 133
