Case 3201010/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs D Ledkova v Traiana Limited — 2021

Case reference: 3201010/2020
Decision date: 1 October 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Burgher Members
Venue: East London Hearing Centre
Panel members: Ms J Henry, Mr M Rowe

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs D Ledkova

Respondent

Traiana Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mrs Ledkova returned from maternity leave on 4 November 2019 into a role reporting to Mr McKenzie. The Tribunal found that, before her return, plans were made in September 2019 without her input for Mr Jeffreys to continue covering her team, and that on 6 January 2020 Mr McKenzie gave her a 2019 appraisal of "meets all or most expectations". On 8 January 2020 he asked HR to update Workday to show her reporting line as Mr Jeffreys; she discovered that on 27 January 2020 and reasonably perceived a reduction in operational status, although her grade and salary had not changed. The Tribunal also found that she did not receive an appraisal for the 2018 year because she was on maternity leave.

Her direct sex discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. The Tribunal accepted that the complaints arose out of maternity leave and the management of the Respondent’s operations during a period of wider reorganisation, and it found no less favourable treatment because of sex. It said Mr McKenzie would have managed a comparable long-term absence similarly, and it found that the grievance-related allegations and the restructure/promotion complaints did not show sex discrimination. In the 2020 restructure process, the Tribunal found the interview panels scored candidates objectively and that the Claimant was not one of the strongest candidates.

The maternity discrimination claim under section 18 Equality Act 2010 succeeded in part. The Tribunal upheld the complaints about not returning her direct reports and not giving her the opportunity to lead the team on her return, and the failure to give her a 2018 appraisal because she was on maternity leave. It treated the appraisal issue as conduct extending over a period for limitation purposes. The victimisation claim failed because, although the grievance and ET claim were protected acts, the Tribunal did not find the pleaded detriments established. Remedy was not determined in the extracted text; the judgment recorded that a remedy hearing was listed.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Sex discrimination	Direct sex discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal rejected the comparison with Mr Jeffreys and found the complained-of matters arose from maternity leave and operational reorganisation, not sex. Allegations about the grievance aftermath and the 2020 restructure/promotion process also failed.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	Section 18 Equality Act 2010. Succeeded on the removal/non-return of direct reports and the failure to give an opportunity to lead the team (allegations 3.2 and 3.3), and on the missing 2018 appraisal (allegation 3.6). The Tribunal treated allegation 3.6 as conduct extending over a period for limitation purposes; other maternity allegations failed. Remedy was not determined in the extracted text.	Upheld	Pregnancy and maternity	—
Victimisation	The Tribunal accepted the grievance and tribunal claim were protected acts, but found no established detriment on the pleaded grievance and restructure allegations, so the victimisation claim failed.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

7 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.