Case 1301531/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Charlotte Parton v The Newman Catholic Collegiate — 2021
- Case reference
- 1301531/2021
- Decision date
- 4 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gilroy KC
- Panel members
- Mrs N Chavda, Mrs B H Astill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Charlotte Parton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Charlotte Parton was a primary school teacher and SENCO at St Peter’s Catholic Academy. By 3 and 4 January 2021 she was 34 weeks pregnant and had exchanged a series of emails with the headteacher, Mrs Snee, about returning to school after the Christmas break. The tribunal accepted that the applicable government guidance for pregnant employees on 23 December 2020 said that women who were 28 weeks pregnant and beyond should take a more precautionary approach and that employers should consider homeworking or other steps to reduce risk where possible.
The tribunal found that Mrs Parton decided not to return to work when she sent her section 44 letter at 10.24 pm on 3 January 2021. Looking at the communications as a whole, it concluded that the respondent had not clearly explained that she was only being asked to attend a meeting, and that she could reasonably have understood that she was being required to attend school for work purposes. Applying the test articulated in Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Limited, the tribunal found that she believed there were circumstances of serious and imminent danger at the workplace, that belief was reasonable, she could not reasonably have averted the danger by attending, and her refusal to return was because of the perceived danger.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the respondent subjected her to a detriment by treating her 4 January 2021 absence as unauthorised and failing to pay her for the day. It further held that the same treatment was unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy under s.18(2)(a) EqA 2010, and pregnancy-related detriment under s.47C ERA 1996 and regulation 19 of the 1999 Regulations. The tribunal said the offer of early maternity leave was neutral, and that the other alleged detriments listed in the issues did not add anything beyond the unauthorised absence and non-payment.
The tribunal also upheld the unlawful deduction from wages claim. It found that Mrs Parton worked from home on 4 January 2021, including SEN, computing and class-based preparation tasks, and that £122.95 for that day was properly payable. This judgment was liability-only, and the tribunal directed that the matter be listed for a later remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Health and safety detriment under s.44(1A) ERA 1996. The tribunal found the claimant reasonably believed there were circumstances of serious and imminent danger on 4 January 2021, could not reasonably avert that danger by attending, and the respondent's treatment of her absence as unauthorised and non-payment for the day were the detriments. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Pregnancy and maternity discrimination under s.18(2)(a) EqA 2010. The tribunal held the same treatment, namely recording the 4 January 2021 absence as unauthorised and not paying for the day, was unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Other | Pregnancy-related detriment under s.47C ERA 1996 and reg. 19 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999. The tribunal found the same conduct amounted to detriment for the reason that the claimant was pregnant. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deduction from wages under s.13 ERA 1996. The tribunal found the claimant worked from home on 4 January 2021 and that the January 2021 shortfall of £122.95 was properly payable, but this liability judgment did not determine a final remedy. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Limited [2023] ICR 356
- Underhill LJ five-question test for serious and imminent danger
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.