Case 1309590/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Brocklehurst v Ivory Cottage Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1309590/2020
- Decision date
- 10 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs Rance, Mr Murphy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Brocklehurst
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously held that specified complaints of pregnancy discrimination under section 18 Equality Act 2010 were well founded and succeeded. Those successful complaints were paragraphs 2.b, 2.c, 2.d, (in part) 2.e, 2.g, 2.h and 2.n of the Agreed List of Issues. The remaining pregnancy discrimination complaints listed in paragraph 2, namely 2.a, 2.f, 2.i, 2.j, 2.k, 2.l and 2.m, were not well founded and were dismissed.
The tribunal also held that the complaints of victimisation under section 27 Equality Act 2010 in paragraphs 6.b and 6.c were well founded and succeeded. The complaints in paragraphs 6.a, 6.d, 6.e and 6.f were dismissed.
The judgment further records that any other complaints of direct discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed. On remedy, the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £18,000 for injury to feelings for pregnancy discrimination and victimisation, plus £552 interest on that sum, making a total award of £18,552.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal held that the complaints of pregnancy discrimination contrary to section 18 Equality Act 2010 set out in paragraphs 2.b, 2.c, 2.d, (in part) 2.e, 2.g, 2.h and 2.n of the Agreed List of Issues were well founded and succeeded. The complaints in paragraphs 2.a, 2.f, 2.i, 2.j, 2.k, 2.l and 2.m were not well founded and were dismissed. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal held that the complaints of victimisation contrary to section 27 Equality Act 2010 set out in paragraphs 6.b and 6.c of the Agreed List of Issues were well founded and succeeded. The complaints in paragraphs 6.a, 6.d, 6.e and 6.f were not well founded and were dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that any other complaints of direct discrimination contrary to section 13 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed. The judgment does not specify a protected characteristic for these remaining direct discrimination complaints. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,552
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 18 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 13 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.