Case 3206724/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Lucy Marley v Premier EA and FS Ltd and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 3206724/2021
- Decision date
- 12 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Lewis Member
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms W Blake-Ranken
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Ms Lucy Marley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously found that Ms Lucy Marley’s claim under s.18 Equality Act 2010 for pregnancy and maternity discrimination succeeded in respect of issues 1.2-1.15. It also found that her s.27 Equality Act 2010 victimisation claim succeeded in respect of issues 1.7-1.15, and that her s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996 whistleblowing detriment claim succeeded in respect of issues 1.7-1.15.
The tribunal further held that the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim succeeded. It found that her dismissal was an act of victimisation contrary to s.27 Equality Act 2010. On the issue of alleged illegality, the tribunal did not find it proportionate to deny the claimant the relief to which she would otherwise be entitled. A remedy hearing was listed for 11 January 2024.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Succeeded under s.18 Equality Act 2010 in respect of issues 1.2-1.15. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Victimisation | Succeeded under s.27 Equality Act 2010 in respect of issues 1.7-1.15. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Whistleblowing detriment claim under s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded in respect of issues 1.7-1.15. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was an act of victimisation contrary to s.27 Equality Act 2010. | Upheld | — | — |
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.