Case 2304791/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Carley Turner v Ms Keeley Mardon and and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2304791/2021
- Decision date
- 7 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mrs L Lindsay, Mr R Singh
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 6-7 December 2023, Employment Judge Abbott with lay members Mrs L Lindsay and Mr R Singh unanimously found that Miss Carley Turner was unfairly dismissed. The tribunal also found that Monkton Under 5 Playgroup discriminated against her contrary to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 in the matters listed at paragraph 2 of the judgment: the December 2020 statement that the nursery had been unable to open for three weeks and that this was her fault, the disciplinary/absence management process from 20 May 2021, the refusal or failure to provide answers and help on 25 May 2021, the hearings on 1 and 14 June 2021 and their conduct, the dismissal, and the rejection of her appeal on 24 September 2021.
The tribunal separately found a failure to make reasonable adjustments contrary to section 21(2) of the Equality Act 2010. The adjustments identified were having at least three staff, including the claimant, on duty when she was working, putting a care plan in place, and introducing intermittent breaks during the day, a protected lunch break, and lunch away from the setting.
The unlawful deductions complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £267.30, a compensatory award of £5,143.72 plus £2,337.71, 8% interest of £510.71 on the compensatory element, £16,200.00 for injury to feelings, and 8% interest of £3,216.92 on the injury-to-feelings award. It recorded a total monetary award of £27,676.36, with a prescribed element of £2,337.71 attributable to 21 July 2021 to 14 June 2022 and an excess of £25,338.65 subject to immediate payment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The basic award of £267.30 was attributed to this claim, but the compensatory award was not split between the unfair dismissal and discrimination findings. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 Equality Act 2010 finding covering the matters listed in paragraph 2(a)-(g): the December 2020 statement that it was her fault the nursery had been unable to open for three weeks, the disciplinary/absence management process from 20 May 2021, the refusal or failure to provide answers and help on 25 May 2021, the hearings on 1 and 14 June 2021 and their conduct, the dismissal, and the dismissal of her appeal on 24 September 2021. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 21(2) Equality Act 2010 finding that the playgroup failed to make reasonable adjustments as set out in paragraph 3(a)-(c): having at least three staff, including the claimant, on duty when she was working; putting a care plan in place; and implementing intermittent breaks during the day, a protected lunch break, and lunch away from the setting. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unlawful deductions from wages was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £27,676
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £267
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £7,481
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.