Case 1803255/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Ahmed v Boots Opticians Professional Services Limited AT A HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 1803255/2023
- Decision date
- 23 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- L Fawcett, G Corbett
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Ahmed
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Ahmed brought disability discrimination claims against Boots Opticians Professional Services Limited. The tribunal upheld the failure to make reasonable adjustments claim only in part. It found that the Respondent had a provision, criterion or practice of requiring Student Dispensing Opticians to fulfil the requirements of the role while also undertaking their studies, and that this placed the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage, as set out in the Posturite report dated 8 June 2023.
The tribunal also upheld the harassment claim in relation to dyslexia, but only for a single incident on 16 December 2022. It found that, after a grievance outcome meeting and when the Claimant no longer had his companion present, he was subjected to unwanted conduct by being required to read and compare two versions of the outcome letter before returning the copy provided at the meeting, which had later been said to have been provided in error.
All other claims were dismissed. Remedy was adjourned to a one-day hearing on 11 April 2025, so no award was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal upheld the failure to make reasonable adjustments claim only to the extent that the Respondent had a provision, criterion or practice requiring Student Dispensing Opticians to fulfil the requirements of the role while undertaking their studies, and that this caused the Claimant a substantial disadvantage as identified in the Posturite report dated 8 June 2023. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal upheld the harassment claim in relation to dyslexia only for the allegation that on 16 December 2022, after a grievance outcome meeting and when the Claimant no longer had his companion present, he was required to read and compare two versions of the outcome letter before returning the copy provided at the meeting, which he had been told had been provided in error. | Upheld | 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.