Case 2219494/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2219494/2024
- Decision date
- 17 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Webster Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Webster heard the case at London Central on 11 to 17 September 2025. Ms I Jermakian brought pleaded claims against Wagamama Limited for direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising out of disability, disability-related harassment, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and a claim described in the judgment as a resignation in response to an act of discrimination.
The tribunal rejected each of those claims. The direct disability discrimination claim was not upheld, the discrimination arising out of disability claim was not upheld, the disability-related harassment claim was not upheld, the reasonable adjustments claim was not upheld, and the resignation-based claim was not upheld.
No claim succeeded, and the judgment records no monetary award or other remedy. The judgment was sent to the parties on 29 September 2025 and dated 18 September 2025.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment refers to this as a claim that the claimant resigned in response to an act of discrimination; mapped here to constructive dismissal. | 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.