Case 2303068/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Louise Andrews v B&Q Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303068/2022
- Decision date
- 4 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Fowell
- Panel members
- Mr R Singh, Mrs J Jerram
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Louise Andrews
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously upheld the claim of discrimination on grounds of pregnancy and maternity. It identified the relevant unfavourable treatment as the decision to refuse the claimant's flexible working request and the conduct of the two meetings concerning that request.
The tribunal also found that the refusal of the flexible working request was an act of indirect sex discrimination. The claims of harassment on grounds of sex and direct sex discrimination were dismissed.
The unlawful deduction from wages claim was dismissed. Compensation or other remedy was left to be assessed at a further hearing if not agreed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The acts of unfavourable treatment comprised the refusal of the claimant's flexible working request and the conduct of the two meetings relating to that request. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal found that the refusal of the flexible working request was an act of indirect sex discrimination. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The claim of harassment on grounds of sex was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The claim of direct sex discrimination was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | 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.