Case 3320196/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Ms H McCarthy v Right Choice Services — 2021

Case reference: 3320196/2019
Decision date: 27 May 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Quill
Venue: Watford
Panel members: Mr W Dykes, Mr D Wharton

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms H McCarthy

Respondent

Right Choice Services

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal, sitting remotely in Watford on 11 and 12 January 2021 before Employment Judge Quill with Mr W Dykes and Mr D Wharton, upheld Ms H McCarthy's complaint of detriment because of pregnancy under s47C Employment Rights Act 1996, her automatic unfair constructive dismissal complaint under s99 Employment Rights Act 1996, and her pregnancy discrimination complaint under s18 Equality Act 2010.

It dismissed the complaint of direct sex discrimination under ss13 and 39 Equality Act 2010. The written record states that the reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.

The judgment does not record any remedy determination. It states that a remedy hearing would take place by video on 27 May 2021.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Complaint of detriment because of pregnancy under s47C Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded.	Upheld	—	—
Constructive dismissal	Automatic unfair constructive dismissal complaint under s99 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded.	Upheld	—	—
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	Pregnancy discrimination complaint under s18 Equality Act 2010 succeeded.	Upheld	Pregnancy and maternity	—
Sex discrimination	Direct sex discrimination complaint under ss13 and 39 Equality Act 2010 failed.	Dismissed	Sex	—

Legal tests applied

4 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.