Case 6008273/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Bartosz Zembrzuski v DHLServices Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008273/2024
- Decision date
- 12 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Chivers
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Bartosz Zembrzuski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the disability discrimination claim after finding that, at the relevant times, the claimant was not a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of anxiety. No remedy followed from that finding.
The race discrimination claim was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit. The tribunal also found it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit.
The victimisation claim was dismissed on the same procedural basis: it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. The judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | At the relevant times the claimant was found not to be a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of anxiety. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 Equality Act 2010
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.