Case 3201947/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F U Ahmed v East London Bus & Coach Company Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3201947/2019
- Decision date
- 9 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Members
- Panel members
- Mrs S Jeary, Mrs M Legg
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F U Ahmed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the case in public by video at East London Hearing Centre on 6 to 9 July 2021 before Employment Judge Moor with lay members Mrs S Jeary and Mrs M Legg. It unanimously held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and did not succeed.
On the Equality Act claim, the Tribunal found that Mr Ahmed was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time. However, the disability discrimination complaint also failed. The Tribunal found that the Respondent did not fail to make reasonable adjustments and that the dismissal was objectively justified.
No monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal found that the Claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time, but the disability discrimination complaint did not succeed. It held that the Respondent did not fail to make reasonable adjustments and that the dismissal was objectively justified. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- objective justification
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.