Case 2408937/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Chetan Masharani First v Second Respondent: L Rowland & Company (Retail) Limited Mr Miles Holt — 2025
- Case reference
- 2408937/2021
- Decision date
- 3 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mrs JK Williamson, Ms Gallagher
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Chetan Masharani First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the first respondent as a Pharmacy Manager from 27 November 1995 until he was dismissed for redundancy. The respondents conceded that he was a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of multiple sclerosis.
The Tribunal dismissed the indirect disability discrimination complaint, but upheld the complaint that the first respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments. Several direct age discrimination, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and harassment complaints were dismissed on withdrawal; the remaining complaints in those categories were dismissed as not well-founded.
The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested. The judgment does not state any remedy figures or a remedy outcome.
Claims and outcomes
10 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 | The indirect disability discrimination complaint against the first respondent was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint against the first respondent was found well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | The direct age discrimination complaints against the first respondent under paragraph 2 of section C of the agreed list of issues were dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | The direct age discrimination complaint against the first and second respondents under paragraph 3 of section C was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The direct disability discrimination complaints under paragraph 2 of section D, and the discrimination arising from disability complaints under paragraphs 2.1 and 2.3 of section E, were dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
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.