Case 1307346/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kaysor Ahmed (family friend & union official but acting as a lay representative) For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1307346/2019
- Decision date
- 19 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry Members
- Panel members
- Ms S Outwin, Mr K Palmer
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Kaysor Ahmed (family friend & union official but acting as a lay representative) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the matter as a hybrid final merits hearing on 14-18 December 2020 before Employment Judge Perry with lay members Ms S Outwin and Mr K Palmer. The claimant was represented by Mr Kaysor Ahmed and the respondent by Mr Gus Baker. In its written judgment the tribunal recorded that the claimant was not directly discriminated against because of race, religion and belief, disability, or, for the avoidance of doubt, because of an association with disability, contrary to Part 5 of the Equality Act 2010.
All of the claimant's complaints were dismissed. The judgment does not set out written reasons in the extract provided; it notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested. The respondent's application for costs was adjourned to a later date, with directions to follow.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal also rejected the complaint to the extent it was framed as discrimination because of an association with disability. | 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.