Case 3322885/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3322885/2021
- Decision date
- 14 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Members
- Venue
- Cambridge
- Panel members
- Mr M Brewiss, Mr D Hart
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed. It also upheld the pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaint in part, finding that the respondent failed to carry out a risk assessment during pregnancy, failed to deal appropriately with the issues raised in the claimant's email of 16 October 2020, and that the constructive dismissal complaint succeeded under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010.
The remaining complaints of sex discrimination and detriment for protected disclosure were dismissed. The tribunal recorded that the claims were in time and therefore within its jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The section 18 claim succeeded in part on the failure to carry out a risk assessment during pregnancy, the failure to deal with the 16 October 2020 email issues, and the constructive dismissal complaint. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The remaining complaints under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint of detriment in contravention of section 47C of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.18 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.47C Employment Rights Act 1996
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.
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.