Case 3305876/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Platt (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305876/2021
- Decision date
- 24 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Ms H T Edwards, Mr A Scott
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms H Platt (counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a financial control assistant employed from February 2018 until her summary dismissal on 14 May 2021, brought complaints arising out of her treatment between January 2021 (when she told her employer she was pregnant) and May 2021. The tribunal heard the case on 18-21 March, 28 March and 12 April 2024 and dealt with liability only, reserving remedy.
The tribunal unanimously found that five specific matters amounted to pregnancy discrimination under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 and pregnancy detriment under section 47C of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 19 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999, succeeding against the second respondent. Those matters were: presenting the claimant with a new employment contract containing an earlier start time on 7 January 2021; asking her to sign the new contract on 23 February and 19 March 2021 and stating agreement would be assumed; not upholding her grievance on 8 March 2021 in respect of the identification of her role as part time and the new contract; informing her on 24 March 2021 that her salary would be reduced to the pro-rata equivalent of 20 hours per week; and failing to pay her full wages in April 2021. The remaining pregnancy-related complaints were dismissed.
The complaints of victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, automatic and ordinary unfair dismissal under sections 98 and 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and wrongful dismissal in respect of notice pay all failed and were dismissed. The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of two days' statutory sick pay due in April 2021 (£19.17 per day) was well founded; the remaining deduction complaints were dismissed. All complaints against the first respondent were dismissed. The claimant had withdrawn complaints of whistleblowing detriment and indirect sex discrimination at the start of the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Pregnancy discrimination under s.18 Equality Act 2010 and pregnancy detriment under s.47C ERA 1996 / reg 19 MPL Regs 1999 succeeded against the second respondent in respect of five specific matters (issues a, b, g, l and m). The remaining pregnancy discrimination and pregnancy detriment complaints were dismissed. The hearing dealt with liability only; remedy was not determined. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Victimisation | Complaints of victimisation contrary to section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Complaints of automatic and ordinary unfair dismissal contrary to sections 98 and 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The complaint of wrongful dismissal in respect of notice pay failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of 2 days statutory sick pay due in April 2021 (£19.17 per day) was well founded and succeeded. The remaining complaints of unauthorised deduction from wages were dismissed. Remedy was not determined at this liability hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 18 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- sections 98 and 99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 47C Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 19 Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999
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.