Case 1300146/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Coy v Uzin Utz UK Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1300146/2019
- Decision date
- 8 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Meichen Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Coy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Birmingham on 8 November 2019, before Employment Judge Meichen, held that Mr D Coy had not shown that he was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment states that the disability discrimination claim depended on establishing disability, and that claim was therefore dismissed.
The claimant’s pregnancy/maternity discrimination claim was dismissed by operation of paragraph 2.2 of the unless order made on 16 July 2019. The judgment then records that there were no other claims before the tribunal, and that the proceedings were therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that the claimant had not shown that he was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, and said the disability discrimination claim depended on establishing disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The claim was dismissed by operation of paragraph 2.2 of the unless order made on 16 July 2019. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.