Case 1303777/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Sidhu v Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy — 2020
- Case reference
- 1303777/2019
- Decision date
- 22 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Butler
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs I Fox, Mr J Sharma
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Sidhu
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Birmingham Employment Tribunal via CVP from 13 October 2020 to 22 October 2020 before Employment Judge Mark Butler, Mrs I Fox and Mr J Sharma. The respondent was the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and the claimant was Ms K Sidhu.
In a short judgment, the tribunal held that the claims of direct disability discrimination, direct race discrimination, indirect disability discrimination, harassment related to disability, failure in the duty to make reasonable adjustments, victimisation, and denying the right to be accompanied at disciplinary or grievance hearings were not well-founded. All of those claims were dismissed.
The judgment does not record any financial award, remedy findings, or separate reasoning for individual claims. It also does not set out any legal tests by name in the extracted text provided.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination was expressly listed among the claims found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination was expressly listed among the claims found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination was expressly listed among the claims found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability was expressly listed among the claims found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure in the duty to make reasonable adjustments was expressly listed among the claims found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation was expressly listed among the claims found not well-founded; the protected characteristic is not stated in the judgment text, but the claim appears in the same disability/race discrimination group. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.