Case 2600135/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Kaminska v Amazon UK Services Ltd and others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600135/2023
- Decision date
- 18 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer Representation
- Venue
- Midlands East
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Kaminska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed on withdrawal specified allegations of harassment related to sex in the first ET1 claim, together with a claim under section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal also dismissed as having no reasonable prospects of success the claim for unpaid wages concerning failure to pay holiday pay, except for the claim about accrued untaken holiday pay on termination, the claim for unpaid wages concerning unworked overtime, and the claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments. The judgment records that reasons were given orally and does not set out any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Allegations of harassment related to sex under s.26 Equality Act 2010 in the first ET1 claim were dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Other | The claim under section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed on withdrawal; the short judgment does not provide further detail. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The unpaid wages claim in respect of failure to pay holiday pay was dismissed as having no reasonable prospects of success, except for the claim relating to accrued untaken holiday pay on termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unpaid wages claim in respect of unworked overtime was dismissed as having no reasonable prospects of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed as having no reasonable prospects of success. | 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.