Case 1404362/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Zowie Young v Shift Group Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1404362/2021
- Decision date
- 7 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Halliday
- Panel members
- Mrs J Killick, Mr D Stewart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Zowie Young
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe unanimous tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge Halliday and lay members Mrs J Killick and Mr D Stewart, found that Ms Zowie Young's pregnancy-related discrimination complaint under sections 18 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 was well-founded in part. The successful heads of claim were those relating to pressure to return to the office, the pregnancy risk assessment, cancellation of her shifts, and a comment made by her line manager.
The judgment record states that the remaining heads of claim failed and were dismissed. No separate remedy was determined in this judgment, and the tribunal directed that a remedy hearing would take place on 8 November 2023.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal found the pregnancy-related discrimination claim under sections 18 and 39 Equality Act 2010 was well-founded in relation to the heads of claim about pressure to return to the office, the pregnancy risk assessment, cancellation of shifts, and a comment by the claimant's line manager. The remaining heads of claim failed and were dismissed. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 18 and 39 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.