Case 1600318/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Lakhveer Kaur v Costco Wholesale (UK) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600318/2022
- Decision date
- 27 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brace Non
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Mrs Y Neves, Mr A McClean
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Lakhveer Kaur
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously found that the claimant was not disabled, at the relevant times, by reason of depression and/or anxiety and/or stress.
It dismissed the complaints of harassment or, in the alternative, direct discrimination related to race, religion or belief, age and/or disability, finding that those complaints were not well founded.
It also dismissed the complaints that the respondent had failed to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and does not provide further written reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal dismissed harassment complaints pleaded in relation to race, religion or belief, age and/or disability, but the written record does not separate the harassment allegations by protected characteristic. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal dismissed complaints described as direct discrimination in the alternative to harassment, related to race, religion or belief, age and/or disability. The written record does not separate the direct discrimination complaints by protected characteristic, so they are recorded as other rather than split into specific discrimination claim types. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed. The tribunal also found the claimant was not disabled by reason of depression and/or anxiety and/or stress at the relevant times. | 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.