Case 2407252/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs E Cotman-Tarkenter v Droylsden Glass Limited — 2024

Case reference: 2407252/2023
Decision date: 2 December 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge M Butler
Venue: Manchester
Panel members: Ms C Linney, Ms B Hillon

Indexed: 17 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs E Cotman-Tarkenter

Respondent

Droylsden Glass Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal found that the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed contrary to s.20(2) of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 and s.99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The Tribunal also found that the claimant was treated unfavourably because she had exercised her right to maternity leave, contrary to s.18 of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant was awarded compensation in the agreed sum of £8,000, with compliance required within 14 days of the judgment.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The judgment states the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed contrary to s.20(2) of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 and s.99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.	Upheld	—	—
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	The judgment states the claimant was treated unfavourably because she exercised her right to maternity leave contrary to s.18 of the Equality Act 2010.	Upheld	Pregnancy and maternity	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £8,000; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

3 references

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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.