Case 2208837/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Yongo v The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants — 2023
- Case reference
- 2208837/2022
- Decision date
- 28 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Akhtar
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr M Simon, Mr D Clay
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms H Yongo
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Yongo was on maternity leave when ACCA restructured its Brand and Marketing team. The tribunal found that, during a discussion about the restructuring and her role, Mr Jervis said that she had "a baby at the wrong time". It also found that her substantive social media role was significantly reduced, with line-management and strategic duties removed and absorbed into the new Social Lead role, and that the Social Lead job description was not provided to her until 1 July 2022. On those findings, the tribunal held that ACCA treated her unfavourably because of pregnancy and/or maternity leave, contrary to s18 Equality Act 2010, and that Hammad Azim's appointment to the Social Lead role rather than the claimant was also linked to that treatment.
The tribunal rejected the allegation that Mr Miller's 19 October 2022 discussion about flexible working was discriminatory. It found that the contemporaneous emails showed Mr Miller understood the claimant to be unsure whether she wanted condensed or reduced hours, and that he invited her to clarify what she wanted so the request could be progressed. The tribunal also dealt with time limits and held that some of the maternity discrimination complaints were outside the ordinary limitation period, but it was just and equitable to extend time under s123 Equality Act 2010 because the events arose in the early months after the claimant's baby was born and she had already been raising the issues informally and through grievance.
The victimisation claim under s27 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. The tribunal found that the missing email inclusions and meeting invites were inadvertent, that no agendas had been prepared for the relevant meetings, and that the respondent and team had taken steps to help with access to files, passwords and handover arrangements. It found no causal link between those matters and the claimant's employment tribunal claim. The judgment was liability-only and listed the case for a remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal upheld the s18 Equality Act claim in relation to the restructure, including Mr Jervis's comment that the claimant had a baby at the wrong time, the reduction of her role and absorption of her duties into the Social Lead role, the delayed provision of the Social Lead job description, and the appointment of Hammad Azim. It rejected the flexible-working allegation. Liability only; remedy was listed for a later hearing. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal dismissed all pleaded s27 Equality Act complaints. It found the missed emails and meeting invites were inadvertent, no agendas had been prepared for the relevant meetings, and efforts were made to provide access, passwords and a live handover document. It found no causal link to the claimant's tribunal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.18 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Igen/Madarassy burden of proof
- Hendricks continuing act test
- Shamoon detriment
- Nagarajan reason why
- just and equitable extension
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.