Case 2504266/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Sayadsarvari v Careline Lifestyles (UK) Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2504266/2019
- Decision date
- 1 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Appearances
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Sayadsarvari
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Newcastle on 31 March 2022 before Employment Judge Sweeney. The claimant, Miss R Sayadsarvari, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The tribunal gave oral reasons at the hearing and issued a written record of the decision dated 31 March 2022, sent to the parties on 1 April 2020 as recorded in the judgment text.
The tribunal found that Miss Sayadsarvari had not established that, during the period March to November 2019, she was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010. That finding was dispositive of the discrimination claims before it.
The complaints of harassment related to disability and direct disability discrimination were therefore dismissed. No remedy was awarded and the judgment records no monetary sum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant had not established that she was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 during the period March to November 2019. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim dismissed on the same basis: the tribunal found the claimant had not established disability within section 6 Equality Act 2010 for the relevant period. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 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.