Case 1600271/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Harrison-Jones v TheStore Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600271/2022
- Decision date
- 12 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Mold & Wrexham
- Panel members
- Mr B Roberts, Mrs C Mangles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Harrison-Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal at Mold & Wrexham heard the case on 6, 7 and 8 December 2022 before Employment Judge R F Powell sitting with members Mr B Roberts and Mrs C Mangles. The claimant was Ms C Harrison-Jones and the respondent was TheStore Limited. The judgment was unanimous.
The tribunal recorded that the claims of discrimination because of pregnancy, contrary to section 18 of the Equality Act 2010, were not well founded and were dismissed. It also recorded that the claims of harassment related to the claimant's sex, contrary to section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, were not well founded and were dismissed. No monetary remedy is recorded in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal stated that the claims of discrimination because of pregnancy, contrary to section 18 Equality Act 2010, were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal stated that the claims of harassment related to the claimant's sex, contrary to section 26 Equality Act 2010, were not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.