Case 6002718/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Masuma Khatun v London Borough of Tower Hamlets — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002718/2024
- Decision date
- 9 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Povey Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms J Houzer, Mr P Lush
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Masuma Khatun
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at the East London Hearing Centre on 6, 7, 8 and 9 May 2025 before Employment Judge S Povey sitting with Ms J Houzer and Mr P Lush. The claimant was Masuma Khatun and the respondent was the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. The Tribunal gave its reasons orally at the hearing and the written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The Tribunal unanimously dismissed all of the claimant's complaints. It found that the complaint of discrimination arising from disability was not made out, the complaint of breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments was not made out, the complaints of harassment by reason of disability were not made out, and the complaints of victimisation were not made out. No monetary remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination arising from disability; the Tribunal found it was not made out. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments; the Tribunal found it was not made out. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Complaint of harassment by reason of disability; the Tribunal found it was not made out. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Complaint of victimisation; the Tribunal found it was not made out. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.