Case 2500305/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Mikolajczak v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2500305/2024
- Decision date
- 23 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heather REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Newcastle upon Tyne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Mikolajczak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Newcastle upon Tyne before Employment Judge Heather, heard the case on 9 to 13 June 2025. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the judgment itself records only the outcomes of the claims.
Miss M Mikolajczak's complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was found not well-founded and dismissed. Her complaint of unfair dismissal was also found not well-founded and dismissed.
The tribunal further dismissed the claimant's direct disability discrimination complaint and her complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability, both as not well-founded. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint in relation to notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination complaint. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability complaint. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.