Case 3303986/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Wright v Pottiebee Inc Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3303986/2020
- Decision date
- 6 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bloch QC
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Wright
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a sex discrimination claim by Mr D Wright arising from a babysitting advert on Facebook and the respondent's application process. The claimant said the site referred to hiring mothers, the application asked whether he was a mother, and when he queried the process he was told that the respondent only allowed women to work as sitters. An email then confirmed that only mothers were allowed on the platform and said he would be removed for lying about his identity. The respondent did not enter a response, default judgment had already been issued, and the respondent did not attend the remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Default judgment on liability had already been entered after the respondent failed to respond. The remedy hearing proceeded in the respondent's absence. | Upheld | Sex | £1,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,500
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £200
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2)
- Vento bands
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.