Case 2302800/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Munim v Boots Management Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302800/2022
- Decision date
- 25 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith
- Panel members
- Ms H Carter, Ms C Edwards
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Munim
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Croydon via CVP on 13 to 17 May 2024 before Employment Judge Leith, Ms H Carter and Ms C Edwards. In its written judgment, it recorded that Mrs T Munim's complaints of direct age discrimination, direct race discrimination, direct religion and belief discrimination, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and unfair dismissal all failed and were dismissed.
The judgment is an operative record only. It states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested in time, so the extracted text does not set out the tribunal's detailed reasoning beyond the dismissals themselves.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct religion and belief discrimination claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim for discrimination arising from disability dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal claim dismissed. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.