Case 2403478/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Yesildag-Doherty v Downland Bedding Company Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2403478/2022
- Decision date
- 9 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Ms F Crane, Mrs J E Williams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Yesildag-Doherty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 27, 28 and 29 September 2023 before Employment Judge Benson, with Ms F Crane and Mrs J E Williams as lay members, the tribunal determined claims brought by Ms S Yesildag-Doherty against Downland Bedding Company Limited. The judgment records that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed, and that the unfair dismissal complaint was not well founded.
The tribunal also rejected the complaint of pregnancy and maternity discrimination, describing it as not well founded. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment, and no separate remedy findings are set out.
The judgment further records that a complaint of direct discrimination was withdrawn. It concludes by stating that all claims are dismissed. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's usual rule.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed and said the complaint was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal held that the complaint of pregnancy and maternity discrimination was not well founded. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the complaint of direct discrimination was withdrawn, but it does not identify the protected characteristic for that claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.