Case 2401848/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E J Ormrod (previously Roach) v Cherish Children’s Care Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2401848/2019
- Decision date
- 22 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater
- Panel members
- Mr D Wilson, Mr W Haydock
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E J Ormrod (previously Roach)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Manchester before Employment Judge Slater, with Mr D Wilson and Mr W Haydock. In its unanimous judgment it rejected the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint and her pregnancy discrimination complaint under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 in respect of the dismissal, recording both as not well founded.
The tribunal also recorded two further complaints as out of time. It said it did not have jurisdiction to consider the detriment complaint under section 47C of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 19 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999, and it likewise said it did not have jurisdiction to consider the pregnancy discrimination complaint about the reduction in hours because that complaint was presented out of time.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal held the complaint of pregnancy discrimination under s.18 Equality Act 2010 in respect of the dismissal was not well founded. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Other | The tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to consider the detriment complaint under s.47C Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 19 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999 because it was presented out of time. | Other | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to consider the pregnancy discrimination complaint under s.18 Equality Act 2010 in relation to the reduction in hours because it was presented out of time. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
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.