Case 1306715/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Azam v IBM United Kingdom Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1306715/2020
- Decision date
- 6 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Dr Hammersley, Mr Stanley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Azam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded complaints against IBM United Kingdom Limited for direct race, disability and religious discrimination under s13 Equality Act 2010, discrimination arising from disability under s15 Equality Act 2010, harassment related to race under s26 Equality Act 2010, and victimisation under s27 Equality Act 2010.
The judgment states that those complaints did not succeed and were dismissed. Reasons were given orally in summary form at the hearing, and the written record does not set out further factual findings or a remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination under s13 Equality Act 2010 did not succeed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under s13 Equality Act 2010 did not succeed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct religious discrimination under s13 Equality Act 2010 did not succeed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under s15 Equality Act 2010 did not succeed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race under s26 Equality Act 2010 did not succeed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation under s27 Equality Act 2010 did not succeed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s13 Equality Act 2010
- s15 Equality Act 2010
- s26 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.