Miss S Keogh v The Old School House Day Nursery Ltd (in liquidation) and Ms J Roberts: 1602012/2019
| Judgment Date | 21 January 2022 |
| Citation | 1602012/2019 |
| Date | 21 January 2022 |
| Published date | 01 February 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Maternity and Pregnancy Rights |
Case Number: 1602012/2019
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
Miss S Keogh
Respondents:
(1) The Old School House Day Nursery Limited (in
liquidation)
(2) Ms J Roberts
Heard at:
Cardiff via CVP
On: 4, 5, 6 and 7 January 2022
Before:
Members:
Employment Judge S Jenkins
Mrs B Currie
Ms B Roberts
Representation:
Claimant:
In person
Respondents:
(1) Not present or represented
(2) Mr J Lewis-Bale (Counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The Claimant’s claims of; discrimination on the ground of pregnancy, by
reason of a failure to allow reasonable time off for ante-natal appointments
(pursuant to Section 18 Equality Act 2010), and of unreasonable refusal to
permit her to take time off for ante-natal appointments (pursuant to Sections
55 and 57 Employment Rights Act 1996), succeed against the First
Respondent only.
2. The First Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the sum of £1, 035.10
in respect of those claims.
3. All of the Claimant’s other claims against the First Respondent and all the
Claimant’s claims against the Second Respondent fail and are dismissed.
Case Number: 1602012/2019
2
REASONS
Background
1. The hearing was to consider the Claimant’s claims of pregnancy
discrimination, contrary to Section 18 Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”), and
unreasonable refusal to permit time off for ante-natal appointments,
contrary to Sections 55 and 57 Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”).
2. The Claimant’s discrimination claim had been brought against both
Respondents, the First Respondent being her former employer and the
Second Respondent being the owner and manager of the First Respondent.
However, the discrete claim relating to a refusal to permit time off under
Section 57 ERA can only be brought against the individual’s employer and
therefore fell to be considered against the First Respondent only.
3. The First Respondent, subsequent to the events that gave rise to the claims
and the submission of the claim in this case, went into voluntary liquidation
in July 2020, due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on its business.
The First Respondent therefore played no part in the hearing, although the
evidence advanced by the Claimant and on behalf of the Second
Respondent in any event also allowed us to address the claims against the
First Respondent.
4. We heard evidence from the Claimant and her mother, Mrs Linda Keogh, on
her behalf; and from Ms Jacqueline Roberts, the Second Respondent and
formerly the Managing Director of the First Respondent; Ms Rebecca
Williams, formerly Deputy Manager of the First Respondent; and Mrs
Wendy Williams, formerly Deputy Manager of the First Respondent; on
behalf of the Second Respondent.
5. We considered the documents in the hearing bundle spanning 648 pages to
which our attention was drawn. We also viewed some CCTV footage,
without audio, of events on 24 May 2019. Finally, we considered the parties’
submissions, written and oral on behalf of the Second Respondent, and oral
by the Claimant.
Issue and Law
6. The issues for us to consider had been identified by Employment Judge
Harfield at a Preliminary Hearing on 31 July 2020 and had been set out by
her at paragraphs 20-23 of the Summary produced following that hearing as
follows:
1. Time limit / limitation issues
To continue reading
Request your trial