A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision has provided useful clarification on how time limits apply in discrimination claims where the alleged discriminatory conduct continues over a period of time.
The ruling in Mokhammad v General Medical Council & Others [2026] EAT 79 serves as an important reminder that not every act of discrimination is treated as a one-off event.
What happened?
Dr Mokhammad, a registered GP, was referred to the General Medical Council (GMC) following an incident at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust.
Following disciplinary proceedings, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal found serious misconduct and issued a formal warning. The GMC then published the warning on its website, where it remained until Dr Mokhammad successfully challenged the decision through judicial review and had the warning quashed.
Dr Mokhammad subsequently brought proceedings alleging, among other things, that both publishing and continuing to display the warning amounted to race discrimination.
The original Employment Tribunal decision
The Employment Tribunal found that the claim had been brought around three years too late.
As discrimination claims are generally required to be brought within three months less one day of the discriminatory act, the Tribunal concluded that it would not be just and equitable to extend the time limit. It considered it unfair to require the employer to defend events that had occurred several years earlier.
What did the Employment Appeal Tribunal decide?
The EAT overturned that aspect of the decision.
It held that Dr Mokhammad had raised an arguable case that the continued publication of the warning constituted conduct extending over a period, rather than a single isolated act.
Because the Employment Tribunal had incorrectly treated publication as a one-off event, it significantly overestimated how late the claim actually was.
The EAT found that, had the Tribunal recognised the continuing nature of the publication, it may have reached a different conclusion about whether it was fair to extend the limitation period.
The case has now been sent back to the Employment Tribunal to reconsider the issue.
Employer guidance
This decision highlights the importance of considering whether workplace actions continue beyond their original publication date.
Employers should be aware that:
- Keeping disciplinary warnings, reprimands or other potentially damaging information available on a website or intranet may amount to continuing conduct.
- Ongoing publication could extend the period during which a discrimination claim may be brought.
- Regular reviews of published employee information can help reduce legal risk.
- Retention, publication and document management policies should be reviewed to ensure they remain appropriate and legally compliant.
Key takeaway
This case reinforces that discrimination claims are not always tied to a single moment in time. Where information continues to be published or remains accessible, employers may face ongoing legal exposure.
Regularly reviewing published disciplinary information and ensuring appropriate retention practices are in place can help minimise risk while supporting compliance with the Equality Act 2010.
