Case 2303413/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Ms R Smith-Kennedy v Maximus UK Services Ltd — 2024

Case reference: 2303413/2022
Decision date: 1 February 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Evans
Panel members: Mr S Corkerton, Mr A Peart

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms R Smith-Kennedy

Respondent

Maximus UK Services Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal unanimously found that the claimant's complaint of unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy was well-founded in relation to issue 1.4, described as the MATB1 allegation, and issue 1.6, described as the risk assessment allegation. The pregnancy complaint was dismissed in relation to the other allegations.

The Tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The judgment record states that reasons were given orally and that remedy would be addressed by agreement or, if necessary, at a later one-day remedy hearing.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	The complaint that the claimant was treated unfavourably because of pregnancy was well-founded in respect of issues 1.4 (the MATB1 allegation) and 1.6 (the risk assessment allegation), and dismissed in respect of all other allegations. Written reasons were not provided in the judgment record.	Upheld	Pregnancy and maternity	—
Working time regulations	The complaint under the Working Time Regulations 1998 was not well-founded and was dismissed. Written reasons were not provided in the judgment record.	Dismissed	—	—

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.

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.