Case 3310748/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Mezgebe v Christ’s College Finchley — 2025
- Case reference
- 3310748/2021
- Decision date
- 15 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr D Sagar, Mr C Surrey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Mezgebe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was a Senior IT Technician at the respondent school and was dismissed on 25 February 2021 at the end of a six-month probationary period. The parties agreed that he was disabled by obstructive sleep apnoea, but the respondent's knowledge of disability and of any substantial disadvantage was disputed.
By a majority, the tribunal found that the respondent did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the claimant's disability at any material time. The majority also found that the claimant had not shown that the matters relied on arose in consequence of disability for the section 15 Equality Act claim, and that the proposed reasonable adjustments would not have reduced or eliminated the asserted disadvantage and were not reasonable on the facts found.
The victimisation complaint was dismissed unanimously. The majority found that the claimant had not established protected acts, while Mr Sagar, who found a limited protected act, concluded that the detriments he found had nothing to do with that act. The withdrawn complaints of automatic unfair dismissal, direct race discrimination, direct disability discrimination, and section 44(1)(c) detriment were dismissed upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was not well founded and was dismissed by the majority, Mr Sagar dissenting. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability was not well founded and was dismissed by the majority, Mr Sagar dissenting. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal unanimously found the victimisation complaint was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination because of race was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination because of disability was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- T-Systems Ltd v Lewis
- Basildon and Thurrock NHS Foundation Trust v Weerasinghe
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh
- Department of Work and Pensions v Hall
- Project Management Institute v Latif
- Peninsula Business Service Ltd v Baker
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.