Case 3200331/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Grand-Maison v Asda Stores Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200331/2020
- Decision date
- 5 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Grand-Maison
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the Claimant was discriminated against because of pregnancy in two respects: she was required to continue lifting after informing the Respondent that she was pregnant, and she was not redeployed from a role that was a potential risk to her pregnancy.
The tribunal dismissed the Claimant's other pregnancy discrimination claims. It also dismissed the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal by reason of pregnancy and the complaint of unfair dismissal.
Compensation was not determined in this judgment because a fire alarm interrupted consideration of remedy. The tribunal stated that any award would consider injury to feelings, interest and an uplift in respect of the Respondent's failure to consider the Claimant's grievance appeal, and that a separate remedy hearing would be listed if remedy was not otherwise resolved.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal upheld the complaints that the Claimant was discriminated against because of pregnancy by being required to continue lifting after informing the Respondent that she was pregnant, and by not being redeployed from a role that was a potential risk to her pregnancy. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | All other claims for discrimination because of pregnancy failed and were dismissed. The specific allegations are not set out in the judgment text supplied. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint for automatic unfair dismissal by reason of pregnancy failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint for unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.