Case 1303366/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Zareen Azam v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and 2 others — 2026
- Case reference
- 1303366/2024
- Decision date
- 15 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gidney
- Venue
- Midlands West
- Panel members
- Mr Colin Greatorex, Mr Kenneth Hutchinson
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Miss Zareen Azam
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal upheld one reasonable adjustments claim against the 1st Respondent. It found that the 1st Respondent failed to take such steps as it was reasonable to take to provide an auxiliary aid, namely a height adjustable footrest, between 26 April 2023 and 28 November 2024, contrary to s20(5) Equality Act 2010.
The Tribunal dismissed all of the Claimant's other claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments contrary to s20-21 Equality Act 2010. It also dismissed the Claimant's victimisation claim under s27 Equality Act 2010.
The written record states that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the stated time limit. No remedy or monetary award is recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The written judgment upheld the claim that the 1st Respondent failed to take reasonable steps to provide an auxiliary aid, namely a height adjustable footrest, between 26 April 2023 and 28 November 2024, contrary to s20(5) Equality Act 2010. No remedy amount was stated. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | All other claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments contrary to s20-21 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed. The written judgment does not give further particulars because reasons were delivered orally. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation claim pursuant to s27 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. The written judgment does not give further particulars because reasons were delivered orally. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s20(5) Equality Act 2010
- s20-21 Equality Act 2010
- s27 Equality Act 2010
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.