Case 2301523/2018 · Employment Tribunal

In Person For the v Respondent — 2019

Case reference: 2301523/2018
Decision date: 13 December 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Balogun Date
Panel members: Ms SV MacDonald, Ms N O’Hare

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In Person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mrs Clarice Boateng worked for the London Borough of Croydon as a debt recovery officer from 8 April 2014. The tribunal found that she was off sick after a miscarriage between 30 November 2015 and 17 January 2016, later had a pregnancy risk assessment on 25 August 2016, and went on maternity leave on 7 December 2016. On her return from maternity leave in October 2017 she sought flexible working and raised issues about breastfeeding arrangements, but the tribunal concluded that all claims failed and were dismissed.

The claim for time off for an antenatal appointment failed because the tribunal found the claimant did not tell her manager she was pregnant until 29 June 2016, not before the 27 May 2016 appointment. On that finding, the manager could not have refused time off for the appointment. The tribunal also said that, even if there had been an unreasonable refusal, the claim was out of time under section 57 ERA 1996.

The direct sex discrimination complaints also failed. The tribunal found there was no evidence of an undue delay in the pregnancy risk assessment, because the claimant was off sick by November 2016 when she was diagnosed with SPD and there was no opportunity or need for a further assessment. It found a breastfeeding risk assessment was unnecessary because the claimant was not breastfeeding or expressing milk on the premises, and the email about telling the team when leaving work was explained as being for telephone cover rather than because of sex.

The indirect discrimination, harassment, and victimisation claims were also dismissed. The tribunal held that the alleged three-month office-based requirement after a prolonged absence was not shown to have been applied to anyone else, and that the alleged instruction to notify colleagues when leaving to breast-feed was not proved as a neutral PCP and in any event had not been applied. On harassment, the tribunal held that the October 2017 email and the March 2018 conversation about breastfeeding would not reasonably be perceived as harassment. On victimisation, it found the January-April 2019 sickness absence review was driven by the respondent's attendance policy triggers and ended with no further action, rather than being caused by the claimant's tribunal proceedings. No monetary award was made because every claim was dismissed.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Complaint under sections 55 and 57 ERA 1996 about reasonable time off for an antenatal appointment on 27 May 2016. The tribunal found the claimant had not notified her manager of the pregnancy until 29 June 2016, so the manager could not have refused the request. It also said the claim was out of time in any event.	Dismissed	—	—
Sex discrimination	Direct sex discrimination complaints covering the alleged delay in a pregnancy risk assessment, the alleged failure to carry out a breastfeeding risk assessment, and the email about letting colleagues know when leaving work. The tribunal found there was no relevant delay or detriment and that the breastfeeding assessment was not required because she was not breastfeeding or expressing milk on the premises.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Sex discrimination	Indirect sex discrimination complaint based on an asserted requirement that she remain office-based for three months after a prolonged absence and an alleged requirement to notify colleagues when leaving to breast-feed. The tribunal held the first requirement was not shown to have been applied to anyone other than the claimant and the second was not proved as a PCP and was not applied to her.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Harassment	Harassment complaints arising from BON's October 2017 email about expressing milk and the 28 March 2018 conversation with JD about breastfeeding. The tribunal accepted the context was discussion of options and adjustments, and held the claimant's perception of harassment was not reasonable on the facts.	Dismissed	Sex	—

Legal tests applied

9 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.