Case 3307867/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Shazia Saeed v Busy Bee Cleaning Services Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3307867/2020
- Decision date
- 9 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill QC
- Panel members
- Ms J. Stewart, Mr L. Hoey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Shazia Saeed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Shazia Saeed brought claims against Busy Bee Cleaning Services Ltd for pregnancy discrimination under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 and direct sex discrimination under section 13. The case was heard at Watford by CVP on 8 and 9 April 2021 before Employment Judge McNeill QC, Ms J. Stewart and Mr L. Hoey.
The tribunal dismissed the pregnancy discrimination claim and upheld the direct sex discrimination claim. The written record does not set out the tribunal's full reasoning because reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were provided unless requested within 14 days.
Following the liability decision, and by agreement between the parties, the Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant compensation of £15,000. The judgment does not divide that sum between the two claims or identify any separate components such as injury to feelings or interest.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Claim brought under section 18 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal dismissed this claim. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | Claim brought as direct sex discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010. Liability was upheld and the parties agreed compensation after that determination, but the award was not split between claims. | Upheld | Sex | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,000
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £15,000
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.