Case 2302083/2022 · Employment Tribunal
S Lasdas v Keoghs LLP — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302083/2022
- Decision date
- 10 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms N Styles, Dr N Westwood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S Lasdas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of race discrimination and victimisation after the respondent withdrew a provisional fixed term IT role offer following an onboarding meeting. The tribunal refused the claimant's anonymity application and rejected the respondent's strike out application, finding that a fair trial remained possible.
The tribunal found that the job offer was withdrawn because the claimant was rude, spoke over Ms Hill, refused to show his passport, and did not agree to use the respondent's laptop. It found that candidates were required to provide ID documentation, that the relevant ID requirement was applied to all, and that the evidence did not show less favourable treatment because of race or a group disadvantage for Greek or foreign nationals.
For victimisation, the tribunal found that the claimant had not done a protected act within section 27 Equality Act 2010. It also found that the withdrawal of the offer was because of the conduct reported from the onboarding call, not because of any protected act.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010 failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Indirect discrimination under section 19 Equality Act 2010 failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation under section 27 Equality Act 2010 failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 19 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
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.