Case 2420683/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Chalmae El Myloudy Zougari v Kidzrus Nursery Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2420683/2020
- Decision date
- 25 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater
- Panel members
- Ms L Heath, Mr R Cunningham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Chalmae El Myloudy Zougari
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found the complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal well founded. The claimant accepted redundancy was the reason for dismissal, but the tribunal was not satisfied that the respondent had acted reasonably in treating that reason as sufficient, including in relation to the redundancy selection process and the evidence about it.
The tribunal dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal complaint under section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 20 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999. It weighed factors that could point towards pregnancy-related selection against other findings, including that other pregnant nursery workers were not selected for redundancy, and concluded that the reason or principal reason for selection was not pregnancy-related.
The tribunal found the victimisation complaints well founded. It concluded that the claimant's grievance alleging pregnancy or maternity discrimination and her first tribunal claim including race discrimination allegations were protected acts, and that the respondent refused to respond to Supply Desk reference requests and threatened civil action because of a protected act.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The ordinary unfair dismissal complaint was found well founded. Remedy was deferred to a final remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment described this as automatic unfair dismissal relying on section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 20 Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999. The tribunal found the reason or principal reason for selection for redundancy was not pregnancy-related. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found victimisation in relation to refusal to respond to Supply Desk reference requests and the threat of civil action. Remedy was deferred to a final remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 20 Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.