Case 3306249/2021 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Mr S Hoyle, Employment Consultant — 2022

Case reference: 3306249/2021
Decision date: 3 October 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge M Ord Members
Panel members: Mr R Allan, Mr A Chinn-Shaw

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Mr S Hoyle, Employment Consultant

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant worked for CF Social Work Limited first on a self-employed basis and then as a full-time Social Work Assistant under a six-month fixed-term contract from 1 July 2020 to 31 December 2020. On 6 November 2020 she told Ms Finlayson that she was pregnant. The tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that Ms Finlayson replied, 'Poppy we've only just put you on a contract', and held that this was unfavourable treatment based on pregnancy within section 18(2) of the Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal rejected the wider pregnancy-related detriment allegations. It found that the reduction in work offered to the claimant in November and December 2020 was caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, including reduced visits, travel restrictions, school closures and more home working, and that all three social work assistants had fewer hours. It was satisfied that the claimant was not treated differently from the other assistants and that the work reduction was unconnected to her pregnancy.

The dismissal complaint also failed. The tribunal found that the claimant's fixed-term contract had expired, that there was no suitable work available, and that the dismissal on 15 January 2021 was for those reasons rather than pregnancy. It noted that two other social work assistants on six-month fixed-term contracts were also dismissed in the same way. The appeal did not properly address the 6 November 2020 remark, but that did not alter the outcome. The claimant was awarded £4,500 for injury to feelings plus £634.19 interest at 8% from 6 November 2020 to 10 August 2022, making a total award of £5,134.19.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	The tribunal found that when the claimant told Ms Finlayson she was pregnant on 6 November 2020, Ms Finlayson replied words to the effect, 'Poppy we've only just put you on a contract'. It held that this remark amounted to unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy.	Upheld	Pregnancy and maternity	£4,500
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	The tribunal rejected the allegations that the reduction in work offered after 6 November 2020, and the complaint that the claimant's contract was not renewed or her employment terminated because of pregnancy, were well founded. It found the work reduction was due to the Covid-19 pandemic and affected all three social work assistants, with no different treatment of the claimant.	Dismissed	Pregnancy and maternity	—
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held that the claimant's dismissal was not because of pregnancy or maternity. It found the reason was the expiry of the fixed-term contract and the lack of suitable work, and that two other social work assistants on similar fixed-term contracts were also dismissed for the same reasons.	Dismissed	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £5,134; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

5 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.