Case 2415413/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Chiamenti v Stanleybet Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415413/2020
- Decision date
- 9 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkett
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms C Jammah, Mr A Gill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Chiamenti
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, chaired by Employment Judge Sharkett with Ms C Jammah and Mr A Gill, heard the case on 21 and 22 February and 27 and 28 April 2022. The written judgment records that the claimant’s ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s94 ERA 1996 was well founded and succeeded.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s automatic unfair dismissal claim under s99 ERA 1996 by virtue of Reg 20 and Reg 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999. It also dismissed the claimant’s unlawful discrimination claims under s18 and s39 Equality Act 2010.
The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and therefore no written reasons were provided unless requested. The record also states that a remedy hearing was to follow on 3 August 2022, so no award figure is set out in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 | Ordinary unfair dismissal under s94 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s99 ERA 1996 by virtue of Reg 20 and Reg 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Claims under s18 and s39 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | 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.