Case 2300881/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Haidarpour v John Lewis plc — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300881/2021
- Decision date
- 2 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Craft Members
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms N Christofi, Mr P Adkins
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Haidarpour
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at London South by CVP over 9 to 13 January 2023 before Employment Judge Craft with members Ms N Christofi and Mr P Adkins. The claimant represented himself and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The unanimous judgment recorded that the claimant's claims of unfair constructive dismissal, direct disability discrimination, disability related harassment, and failure to make reasonable adjustments all failed and were dismissed. The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and no written reasons are included in the written record supplied.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a claim of unfair constructive dismissal, which failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination contrary to s.13 Equality Act 2010 failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Disability related harassment contrary to s.26 Equality Act 2010 failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments contrary to s.20 Equality Act 2020, as stated in the extracted judgment text, failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2020
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.