Case 4100564/2024 · Employment Tribunal
I Ashfar and W Muir Ms S Cherry v Glasgow City Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 4100564/2024
- Decision date
- 17 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge C McManus Members
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- I Ashfar, W Muir
Parties
2 namedClaimant
I Ashfar and W Muir Ms S Cherry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously held that the claimant's claim of direct discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and dismissed it. The judgment text does not identify the protected characteristic for that direct discrimination claim.
The Tribunal also dismissed the claimant's harassment claims under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, which were related to the protected characteristics of race and religion. The claimant's victimisation claim under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 was likewise held not well founded and dismissed.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. No monetary remedy was awarded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment dismissed a claim of direct discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, but the extracted judgment text does not specify the protected characteristic for that direct discrimination claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 related to race was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 related to religion was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation claim under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 26 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 27 of the Equality Act 2010
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.