Case 1305589/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Hopperton v Ave Maria Care Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1305589/2023
- Decision date
- 18 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds
- Panel members
- Mr R Virdee, Mr D Faulconbridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Hopperton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a care assistant on a zero-hours arrangement, brought complaints arising from how she said she was treated after notifying the respondent of her pregnancy, principally relating to clients being removed from her rota. The Tribunal (Employment Judge Edmonds sitting with Mr R Virdee and Mr D Faulconbridge) found unanimously that the s.47C ERA 1996 detriment complaint and the Equality Act pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaint were both well-founded in relation to specific acts: the removal of the RS appointments (detriment only), the removal of the SM appointments, the removal of the claimant's shift on 15 March 2023, and failure to pay the claimant for attending ante-natal appointments on 27 February 2023 and 24 April 2023. Other allegations under those headings were dismissed.
The Tribunal also found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded. It dismissed the complaints of unfair dismissal (pleaded as automatically unfair under s.99 ERA / MAPLE reg 20(3)(a)) and victimisation. On time limits, the Tribunal treated the rota-related allegations as conduct extending over a period and a series of similar acts culminating no earlier than 12 March 2023, so the surviving complaints were presented within time; the ante-natal pay issues were treated as in time by reference to the payroll cycle.
A separate two-day remedy hearing was directed, with the claimant ordered to file an updated Schedule of Loss by 7 March 2025 and the respondent a counter-schedule by 28 March 2025. No quantum figures were determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaint succeeded in relation to the removal of the SM appointments, the removal of the claimant's shift on 15 March 2023, and failure to pay for ante-natal appointments on 27 February 2023 and 24 April 2023. Other matters under this complaint were dismissed. A separate remedy hearing was to be listed. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Other | Complaint of detriment for the prescribed reason of pregnancy, childbirth or maternity (s.47C ERA 1996) was well-founded in relation to the removal of the RS appointments, the removal of the SM appointments, the removal of the claimant's shift on 15 March 2023, and failure to pay for ante-natal appointments on 27 February 2023 and 24 April 2023. Other matters under this complaint were dismissed. This is a s.47C detriment claim (leave for family and domestic reasons) which does not map cleanly onto the locked §4.4 enum; classified as 'other' to avoid mis-tagging. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded. Quantum to be addressed at a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint of unfair dismissal (pleaded as automatically unfair dismissal under s.99 ERA 1996 / MAPLE reg 20(3)(a) for a pregnancy-related reason) was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Complaint of victimisation was not well-founded and was dismissed. |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 47C of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- MAPLE reg 20(3)(a)
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.