Case 1305238/2021 · Employment Tribunal
MISS CHELSEA PETTIGREW v Spiro-Gills Thermal Products Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1305238/2021
- Decision date
- 20 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N. Clarke
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Miss H. Astill, Mr K. Palmer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MISS CHELSEA PETTIGREW
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing in public judgment in Birmingham, Employment Judge N. Clarke sitting with lay members Miss H. Astill and Mr K. Palmer found that Miss Chelsea Pettigrew's claim of direct discrimination because of sex was well founded in relation to the Respondent suspending her on 11 October 2021 and inviting her to a disciplinary hearing on 4 November 2021.
All remaining claims were dismissed as not well-founded. These were one further direct sex discrimination claim, harassment related to sex or of a sexual nature, victimisation, and the claim for unpaid leave.
The extract records the outcomes but does not set out any monetary remedy, and no award is recorded in the judgment text supplied.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal held that the claim of direct discrimination because of sex was well founded in relation to the Respondent suspending the Claimant on 11 October 2021 and inviting her to a disciplinary hearing on 4 November 2021. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment dismisses one further direct sex discrimination claim, but the extracted text does not identify the specific act relied on. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The judgment dismisses the claim for harassment related to sex or of a sexual nature. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment refers to a claim 'for unpaid leave'; this is classified here as working_time because that is the closest listed category and the extract does not identify a different statutory basis. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.