Case 2410309/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Parhiar v Sodexo Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2410309/2022
- Decision date
- 20 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mrs M Plimley, Mr A Wells
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Parhiar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, constituted by Employment Judge M Butler sitting with Mrs M Plimley and Mr A Wells, heard the case in Manchester on 14, 15 and 16 August 2024. The claimant, Mr A Parhiar, represented himself and the respondent, Sodexo Limited, was represented by counsel.
The judgment records that the claims of direct race discrimination failed and were dismissed. It also records that the claims of direct religion or belief discrimination failed and were dismissed. Those were separate discrimination claims brought by the claimant and both were rejected in full.
The claim that the respondent failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments also failed and was dismissed. The judgment states that this was for substantially the reasons given in the deposit order that applied to that specific allegation, but it does not set out those reasons in the written record.
The claims of victimisation failed and were dismissed. No remedy or monetary award is recorded in the judgment, and no separate damages or compensation figures are identified for any of the claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct religion or belief discrimination claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Disability discrimination | The reasonable adjustments allegation was dismissed, for substantially the reasons given in the deposit order that applied to this specific allegation. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation 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.
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.