Case 3312391/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Shukri Jama-Yusuf v LHR Airports Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3312391/2019
- Decision date
- 3 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Shukri Jama-Yusuf
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing to decide disability status. The claimant had been employed by the respondent from 16 January 2017 until her dismissal on 14 December 2018, and brought complaints of disability discrimination. The tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal claim stood to be dismissed because she lacked two years' qualifying service.
The respondent accepted that dyslexia was a physical and/or mental impairment and that it was long term, but disputed diagnosis of dyspraxia, dyscalculia and dysgraphia and disputed substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. The tribunal considered the Equality Act 2010, the statutory guidance, a 2008 needs assessment and psychological report, GP letters, and the claimant's impact statement.
The tribunal found that the claimant had severe dyslexia causing a substantial adverse effect on reading and writing on paper and on a computer, and that related symptoms associated with dyspraxia, dyscalculia and dysgraphia added cumulatively to that disability. It did not find that the claimant had established depression, anxiety, dyspraxia, dysgraphia or dyscalculia as separate diagnosed disabilities, nor that she had established a substantial adverse effect on oral communication. The tribunal concluded that she was disabled at all material times by reason of dyslexia.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | At an open preliminary hearing the tribunal determined the preliminary issue that the claimant was a disabled person at all material times by reason of dyslexia with some symptoms associated with dyspraxia, dyscalculia and dysgraphia. The merits of the disability discrimination complaints were not determined in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The reasons state that the unfair dismissal claim stands to be dismissed because the claimant did not have the requisite two years' qualifying service. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Equality Act 2010 definition of disability
- Guidance on the definition of disability (2011)
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.