Case 6004705/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Ms B Khorram v Capgemini UK plc — 2025

Case reference: 6004705/2024
Decision date: 9 January 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Emery REPRESENTATION

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms B Khorram

Respondent

Capgemini UK plc

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing in public, the Tribunal found that from September 2022 onwards and during the relevant period of the claim, Ms B Khorram was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of ADHD and associated depression and anxiety.

The judgment stated that complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments can proceed. The claimant's application to amend to add further allegations of discrimination arising from disability succeeded, while the application to amend to add further allegations of disability-related harassment failed.

The respondent's application for a deposit order failed because it had not shown grounds that the disability-related detriment and reasonable adjustments claims had little reasonable prospect of success.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Preliminary hearing judgment found the claimant was disabled under section 6 Equality Act 2010 from September 2022 onwards and that complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments can proceed.	Other	Disability	—
Harassment	The application to amend the claim to include further allegations of disability-related harassment failed; the judgment does not determine the merits of an existing harassment complaint.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.