Case 6010127/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Aris v Blossom Healthcare Ltd, trading as Curant Care — 2026
- Case reference
- 6010127/2024
- Decision date
- 5 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ramsden, sitting alone, found in favour of the claimant on both her claims. The claimant's complaint of pregnancy discrimination contrary to s.18 Equality Act 2010 succeeded, as did her complaint of constructive automatic unfair dismissal contrary to s.99 ERA 1996, the tribunal having found that the principal reason for the dismissal was pregnancy.
The claimant - a Care Worker for the respondent home care company from 29 May 2024 - informed her manager (MR) on 18 June 2024 that she was pregnant, was absent on 20-21 June with pregnancy-related nausea, and on 26 June reported being pinched and hit in the stomach and hips by a patient and went to hospital on midwife advice. After she informed MR, the manager's WhatsApp messages reprimanded the claimant for absences ("You have been constatly called insick since you find out you were pregnan"). The claimant resigned the same day in response, and was found unfit for work by her doctor from 23 July 2024 until she gave birth to twin daughters prematurely in December 2024.
Applying Vento and considering the directness of the discrimination, the messages being read by other staff, the threatening nature of the messages, the claimant's pre-existing anxiety and high-risk pregnancy, the impact on her recovery (still hurt 18 months later), and her reluctance to apply for further care-sector roles, the tribunal awarded £2,340 financial losses, £18,000 injury to feelings (Vento middle band) and £2,492.07 interest at 8% simple per annum over 559 days, totalling £22,832.07. No ACAS uplift was made; the tribunal was not satisfied the Code applied to the post-resignation grievance, and in any event it would not be just and equitable to apply an uplift given the respondent's attempted post-resignation contact for an exit interview. The PDF was truncated at 15,000 of 45,413 characters.
Claims and outcomes
2 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £22,832 |
| Constructive dismissal | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,832
- Compensatory award
- £2,340
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.