Case 2500583/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Farzana Zabir v ATOS IT Services UK Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2500583/2020
- Decision date
- 25 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Farzana Zabir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant had withdrawn complaints of direct discrimination because of race, religion or belief, and sex under section 13 Equality Act 2010. It also recorded that all complaints of disability discrimination were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant.
The judgment stated that the dismissal of those withdrawn complaints did not affect the claimant's complaint of harassment contrary to section 26 Equality Act 2010, which was to continue to a hearing. No remedy or monetary award was addressed in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that direct discrimination because of race under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment states that direct discrimination because of religion/belief under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that direct discrimination because of sex under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that all complaints of disability discrimination were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant; it does not identify individual disability discrimination complaint types. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 13 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.