Case 2304201/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Igityan v Topdesk UK Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2304201/2019
- Decision date
- 20 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Members
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mr J Hutchings, Mrs J Beard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Igityan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs N Igityan brought disability discrimination and unfair dismissal complaints against Topdesk UK Ltd. The tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments in relation to a requirement that she attend the office five days a week. It rejected her separate complaint that reasonable adjustments were not made to the redundancy consultation process.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments in relation to a requirement to attend the office five days a week. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments to the redundancy consultation process. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that the dismissal amounted to direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £43,319
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £7,480
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.