Case 1802133/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Ms T Mellor v The MFG Academies Trust — 2022

Case reference: 1802133/2021
Decision date: 8 March 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Miller
Panel members: Ms J Noble, Mr D Dorman-Smith

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms T Mellor

Respondent

The MFG Academies Trust

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Ms Mellor returned from maternity leave in 2020 and repeatedly told the respondent that she needed a room to express breast milk. The tribunal found that she raised the issue in writing in March and June 2020, again on and after her return to work in September 2020, and later to HR and her line manager. It also found that no suitable room was provided, that no storage-fridge claim was made out, and that a pregnancy risk assessment that would likely have addressed the issue was not carried out.

The direct sex discrimination claim was dismissed. The tribunal held that the respondent's failure to provide expressing facilities was not shown to be because Ms Mellor was a woman or because she was breastfeeding; on its findings, the cause was administrative failure rather than discriminatory treatment. It also concluded that the section 13(6)/(7) issue did not bar the claim, but that point did not alter the outcome. The separate direct-discrimination theory based on breastfeeding was also dismissed on the same essential basis.

The indirect sex discrimination claim was also dismissed. Although the tribunal found that from September 2020 the respondent had a practice of not providing suitable facilities for women to express milk, it held that the alleged PCP could not sensibly be applied to men and therefore did not establish the required comparative disadvantage under section 19. On that basis, the tribunal did not need to decide justification.

The harassment claim succeeded. The tribunal found that, after repeated requests had gone unanswered, Ms Mellor genuinely and reasonably felt forced to express milk in toilets or her car during short lunch breaks, sometimes while eating lunch and on occasion experiencing leakage. It held that this conduct was unwanted, that it created a degrading or humiliating environment, and that it was related to sex. On time limits, the tribunal found the harassment formed a continuing course of conduct ending on 16 December 2020, so the claim was in time. Remedy was not assessed in this judgment and was listed for a separate hearing.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Sex discrimination	The tribunal treated the claim as direct sex discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010, including the claimant's argument that the refusal of expressing facilities was because she was breastfeeding. It dismissed the claim, finding the respondent's failure to provide a room was attributable to administrative failure rather than sex.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Sex discrimination	Indirect sex discrimination based on the alleged practice of not providing suitable facilities to express milk was dismissed. The tribunal found there was a practice from September 2020, but held that a sex-specific expressing-facilities PCP could not meaningfully be applied to men for the purposes of section 19, so no comparative disadvantage arose.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Harassment	Harassment related to sex was upheld on the basis that the claimant was forced to express milk in toilets or her car, which the tribunal found created a degrading and humiliating environment. Remedy was left to a separate hearing.	Upheld	Sex	—

Legal tests applied

14 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.