Case 1304087/2023 · Employment Tribunal
FOZIA KAUSER v Jade Lewis T/a Bright Sparks Day Nursery — 2024
- Case reference
- 1304087/2023
- Decision date
- 8 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCluggage
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs Howard, Mr Hutchinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
FOZIA KAUSER
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Birmingham Employment Tribunal on 3 and 4 June 2024 before Employment Judge McCluggage, Mrs Howard and Mr Hutchinson. The claimant, Fozia Kauser, appeared in person and the respondent, Jade Lewis t/a Bright Sparks Day Nursery, also appeared in person.
The only claim recorded in the judgment was a claim for pregnancy and maternity discrimination under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found that claim was not well founded and dismissed it.
The written record notes that the judgment was given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal rules. No monetary remedy was awarded or recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal stated that the claim for pregnancy and maternity discrimination under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 was not well founded. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 18 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.