Case 2205388/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Bowler (lay representative) For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2205388/2018
- Decision date
- 11 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms KA Church, Mr D Clay
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr A Bowler (lay representative) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge E Burns and lay members Ms KA Church and Mr D Clay, heard the case at London Central on 11-15 November 2019. The judgment records a unanimous decision and identifies the claimant as Mrs M Bowler and the respondent as Creative Education Trust.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s claims of pregnancy and maternity discrimination under sections 18(2), (4), (5) and (6) of the Equality Act 2010. It also dismissed the claimant’s claim of sex discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal further dismissed the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim. The extracted judgment text does not set out any remedy award, and no monetary figures are recorded in the judgment extract provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Claim dismissed under sections 18(2), (4), (5) and (6) of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | Claim dismissed under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.