Case 3314660/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Javed v Siemens Healthcare Ltd and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3314660/2020
- Decision date
- 9 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Javed
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Reading on 20 to 22 June 2022 before Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by solicitor Mr S Pender. The tribunal recorded that the claimant’s complaints of direct discrimination on the grounds of race and religion were not well founded.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant’s complaints of harassment related to race and harassment related to religion were not well founded. On that basis, all of the claimant’s complaints were dismissed.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination on the grounds of race was found not well founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination on the grounds of religion was found not well founded. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race was found not well founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to religion was found not well founded. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
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.