Case 2414746/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Nicola Hill v The Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust Heard by CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 2414746/2019
- Decision date
- 5 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Warren
- Panel members
- Mr I Taylor, Mr I Frame
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Nicola Hill
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously held that the claimant's claim of detriment under section 47C Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded. It found that the claimant was subjected to detriments by failures of the respondent which related to her pregnancy.
The Tribunal also upheld the claim of discrimination because of the claimant's protected characteristic of sex, namely pregnancy, and the claim of harassment because of the same protected characteristic. The judgment records that the allegations underlying the three heads of claim were in effect triplicated.
Because the same allegations supported each head of claim, the Tribunal made only one award of damages for injury to feelings. It ordered the respondent to pay £8,500 for injury to feelings and interest at 8% from 19 June 2019 to 15 January 2021, amounting to £1,072.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim of detriment under section 47C Employment Rights Act 1996; the Tribunal found the claimant was subjected to detriments by failures of the respondent which related to her pregnancy. | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Claim of discrimination because of the claimant's protected characteristic of sex, namely pregnancy. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Claim of harassment because of the claimant's protected characteristic of sex, namely pregnancy. | Upheld | Sex | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,572
- across all upheld claims
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.