Case 2201249/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Zeineddine v LSEG Employment Services Limited Mr S Chandran — 2020
- Case reference
- 2201249/2019
- Decision date
- 1 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge DAVIDSON
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Zeineddine
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the claimant withdrew the listed complaints, and the tribunal dismissed them following that withdrawal. Those complaints were indirect discrimination under section 19 Equality Act 2010 on grounds of race and/or religion and belief, a section 111 Equality Act 2010 complaint alleging unlawfully instructing, causing or inducing others to discriminate, harass and/or victimise the claimant, and a complaint of detriment for asserting a statutory right contrary to the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The order states that the claimant's remaining claims would proceed to hearing on 1 September 2020. No liability finding on those remaining claims, and no remedy award, is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Indirect discrimination under section 19 Equality Act 2010 pleaded on grounds of the claimant's race and/or religion and belief; dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Indirect discrimination under section 19 Equality Act 2010 pleaded on grounds of the claimant's race and/or religion and belief; dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Other | Complaint under section 111 Equality Act 2010 alleging unlawfully instructing, causing or inducing others to discriminate, harass and/or victimise the claimant; dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Complaint of detriment as a result of asserting a statutory right contrary to the Employment Rights Act 1996; dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.