Case 2602461/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A James v Firstsource Solutions Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2602461/2019
- Decision date
- 22 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A James
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this Rule 21 judgment dated 22 November 2019, Employment Judge Faulkner recorded that Miss A James's complaints of unfair dismissal and unauthorised deductions from wages succeeded. The judgment also states that her disability-related complaints succeeded, namely discrimination arising from disability, indirect disability discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The tribunal did not determine remedy in this decision. It directed that the remedy to which the claimant was entitled would be determined at a later Remedy Hearing, and it noted that the hearing listed for 14 to 16 September 2020 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Succeeded under the Rule 21 judgment; remedy to be determined at a later Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as a complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages and records that it succeeded; remedy to be determined later. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim for discrimination arising from disability succeeded; remedy to be determined at a later Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim for indirect disability discrimination succeeded; remedy to be determined at a later Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded; remedy to be determined at a later Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
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.