Case 2302132/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Ms J Lupton v Ms O Balay — 2021

Case reference: 2302132/2020
Decision date: 27 September 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Dyal
Venue: London South
Panel members: Mr R Shaw, Ms J Saunders

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms J Lupton

Respondent

Ms O Balay

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal upheld the Claimant's complaint of pregnancy-related detriment under s.47C Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 19 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999, and also upheld her complaint of direct pregnancy and maternity discrimination under s.18 Equality Act 2010. The upheld matters were the text message of 5 February 2020 and the childcare advert of 24 January 2020.

The tribunal also found that the Claimant had been constructively dismissed under ss.94 and 99 Employment Rights Act 1996 read with regulation 20 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999, and said that the reason for the dismissal was connected to pregnancy. The judgment states that the complaints were otherwise dismissed.

No separate monetary award is stated in the extracted judgment text.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Pregnancy-related detriment under s.47C Employment Rights Act 1996 read with regulation 19 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 was upheld in respect of the text message of 5 February 2020 and the childcare advert of 24 January 2020.	Upheld	—	—
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	Direct pregnancy and maternity discrimination under s.18 Equality Act 2010 was upheld in respect of the text message of 5 February 2020 and the childcare advert of 24 January 2020.	Upheld	Pregnancy and maternity	—
Constructive dismissal	The Claimant was found to have been constructively dismissed contrary to ss.94 and 99 Employment Rights Act 1996 read with regulation 20 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999; the tribunal said the reason for the dismissal was connected to pregnancy.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 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.