Case 2411962/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Lea v British Telecommunications plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 2411962/2023
- Decision date
- 17 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Panel members
- Mr Pennie, Mr Stowe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Lea
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy or because the claimant was exercising or had exercised her right to maternity leave. The written judgment states the result but records that reasons were given orally, so it does not set out detailed findings on that complaint.
The Tribunal upheld the flexible working complaint under section 80F of the Employment Rights Act to the extent that the respondent failed to deal with the claimant's application in a reasonable manner. It dismissed the allegation that the respondent refused the application for a reason other than one of the statutory grounds in s80(1)(b), and ordered the respondent to pay six weeks' pay of £3,411.36.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment describes this as a complaint of unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy or because the claimant was exercising or had exercised her right to maternity leave; it was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Flexible working | The section 80F complaint was well-founded only to the extent that the respondent failed to deal with the flexible working application in a reasonable manner. The separate allegation that the application was refused for a reason other than one of the statutory grounds in s80(1)(b) was not well-founded. | Upheld | — | £3,411 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,411
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 80F of the Employment Rights Act
- s80(1)(b)
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.