Case 1401061/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Syed v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401061/2022
- Decision date
- 3 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bax Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Syed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claims of direct discrimination on the grounds of race and religion. It also dismissed the disability discrimination claims, identified in the written judgment as discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The tribunal further dismissed the claims of victimisation. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the specified period, so the written judgment does not set out the tribunal's factual findings or reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment records that the claim of direct discrimination on the ground of race was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment records that the claim of direct discrimination on the ground of religion was dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the claim of discrimination arising from disability was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment records that the claims of victimisation were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.