Case 3300356/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Cretten v Reach Active Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3300356/2019
- Decision date
- 8 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Members
- Panel members
- Ms E Deem, Mr C Grant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T Cretten
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case remotely by CVP on 5 to 8 October 2020 before Employment Judge Laidler, with Ms E Deem and Mr C Grant sitting as members. The claimant, Miss T Cretten, appeared in person and the respondent, Reach Active Limited, was represented by counsel.
On the Equality Act 2010 claims, the tribunal found that the claimant was not treated unfavourably in the protected period because of her pregnancy. On that basis, all claims under the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed. The judgment does not set out any separate monetary remedy because none was awarded.
The tribunal also rejected the unfair constructive dismissal claim. It found that the claimant resigned and was not dismissed, so the constructive dismissal claim failed and was dismissed. No compensation or other remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was not treated unfavourably in the protected period because of pregnancy, and all Equality Act 2010 claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant resigned and was not dismissed, so the unfair constructive dismissal claim failed. | 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.
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.