Case 2400137/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Zima v The Co-Operative Group Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2400137/2022
- Decision date
- 27 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Noons Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Zima
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the claimant's complaints relating to discrimination on grounds of marital status were dismissed following withdrawal. It also struck out the claimant's complaints of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief.
The Tribunal struck out the claimant's complaints of direct race discrimination insofar as they concerned alleged difference in treatment between the claimant and Mrs A Jozwiak and Mr A Jozwiak. The Tribunal allowed the claimant's application to amend her claim to include a victimisation complaint and found it just and equitable to extend time for bringing that complaint.
No monetary remedy was recorded in the judgment. The reasons were given orally, with written reasons to be provided only if requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marriage or civil partnership discrimination | The judgment states that the complaints in relation to discrimination on grounds of marital status were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Marriage / civil partnership | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment states that the complaints of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief were struck out. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the complaints of direct race discrimination relating to alleged difference in treatment between the claimant and Mrs A Jozwiak and Mr A Jozwiak were struck out. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment allowed the claimant's application to amend her claim to include a complaint of victimisation and found it just and equitable to extend time for that complaint. It did not determine the victimisation complaint on its merits. | Other | — | — |
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.