Case 2209032/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Vyas v Atos International Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2209032/2022
- Decision date
- 12 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Smith
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Z Darmas, T Harrington-Roberts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Vyas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent from 12 July 2016 until his dismissal for redundancy on 2 February 2023. He brought complaints of direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment related to disability, victimisation and unfair dismissal.
The tribunal dismissed the direct disability discrimination complaints concerning a promotion panel and the recruitment of Alex Kim because they were not presented within the applicable time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. It also dismissed the harassment related to disability complaints on the same limitation basis.
The tribunal found that the direct disability discrimination complaint about dismissal, the failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint, the victimisation complaint and the unfair dismissal complaint were not well-founded. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination complaints about the promotion panel and recruitment of Alex Kim were dismissed as out of time, and the complaint about dismissal was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability complaints were dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation complaint based on dismissal after a grievance alleging discrimination was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Jones v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2024] EAT 2
- Equality Act 2010 section 26
- Equality Act 2010 section 27
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.