Employment Tribunal | Redmans Solicitors

Summary

How Chris Hadrill, a specialist employment solicitor, represented a client in settlement agreement negotiations and secured the client an increase of over £3,000 when allegations were put to the client that they had engaged in misconduct in the workplace. Chris also helped the client to secure other amendments to their settlement agreement.

Situation

Melania (not her real name) worked for a nursery company for a number of years. She was approached by her employer and told that she was being accused of being disruptive in the workplace and lying. Melania disputed these allegations and sought legal advice. She instructed Redmans to negotiate her settlement agreement for her and Chris Hadrill, the partner in the employment department at Redmans, advised Melania on her matter. In particular, Melania wanted to negotiate the tax-free ex-gratia value of the package she was being offered and improve the reference she was being offered.

What we did

Chris discussed Melania’s concerns about the situation with her, as well as the requirements that she had for the amendment of the settlement agreement. Chris agreed a list of amendments with Melania and sought to negotiate these with her employer, representing her in the settlement agreement negotiations.

Chris negotiated a higher value of settlement agreement (an increase of £3,000 to the ex-gratia value that had initially been proposed) for Melissa. Chris also managed to persuade Melissa’s employer to amend the reference as Melissa had requested, as well as securing a number of other improvements to the settlement agreement that Melania had requested. Finally, it was agreed that Anton’s employer would increase their coverage of legal fees under the settlement agreement so as to cover a large amount of the cost of Melania receiving legal advice.

Click on this link for a guide for employee to settlement agreements

The result

After a short period of negotiation, as detailed above, Melania’s employer agreed to increase the value of the tax-free ex-gratia sum of the settlement agreement by over £3,000 (a sum equal to approximately a month’s salary for Melissa), to pay Melania out for her notice period and holiday, improve the reference as Melania had requested, and increase the value of the legal cost coverage that her employer was willing to pay. It was also agreed that the terms of the agreement – and the reason for Melania leaving her employer – would be covered by a mutual confidentiality clause, that both parties would agree to not say derogatory things about the other after the agreement was completed, and that Melania would receive an agreed written reference from the business in the future.

Chris Hadrill, the specialist employment solicitor who dealt with Melania’s case, commented on the case: “I was delighted to assist Melania in securing an improvement to the terms of her settlement agreement and, in particular, improving the nature of the reference that was to be provided and the value of the tax-free ex-gratia sum payable under the settlement agreement.”

Please note that all of the names used for clients and third parties in this article and other articles are anonymised (unless expressly stated otherwise) to protect client confidentiality

About

Redmans Employment Team deal with employment matters for both employers and employees, including drafting employment contracts and policies, advising employers and employees on compromise agreements, handling day-to-day HR issues, advising on restructures, and handling Employment Tribunal cases for both employers and employees Call 020 3397 3603 to speak to one of the members of our employment team or email us on enquiries@redmans.co.uk.

In the case of Miss G Anderson v Spar Duntocher: 4105236/2016 the Employment Tribunal held that Ms Anderson had been dismissed from her job because of her pregnancy, and ordered Spar Duntocher to pay her over £12,000 in compensation.

The facts in Anderson v Spar Duntocher

Spar Duntocher is a grocery store operating in Duntocher. The business is owned jointly by Arshad Sadiq and Amjid Sadiq.

Ms Anderson commenced employment with Spar Duntocher on 10 April 2016 as a sales assistant. She worked shifts at the business and her general arrangement was that she would work the early shift on Saturdays and Sundays (7am to 3pm), and a late shift on a Tuesday (3pm to 10pm). She generally worked 20 hours per week, although there were some exceptions to this.

In April 2016 Ms Anderson fell pregnant but she did not discover this until 14 May 2016. She was sick on this day and did not attend work (due to this); she attended work the next day but was sent home because she looked so ill. Ms Anderson next attended work on Tuesday 17 May 2016; by this time she had discovered she was pregnant and informed Arshad Sadiq that she was pregnant.

Ms Anderson had an accident at work in mid-June 2016 and was off work until 21 June 2016. On 31 July 2016 she suffered severe pelvic pain; she was due to work that day but was advised by the Maternity Support Unit at the hospital not to attend work. She informed Mr Johal at approx 12pm that day that she would be unable to attend work due to severe pelvic and stomach pain.

Ms Anderson subsequently received a copy of the rota for the next week’s work which indicated that she was not scheduled to have a shift. She therefore telephoned the shop to ask why, and the telephone was answered by Arshad Sadiq. He asked her what had happened with her previous shift and she explained that she had suffered pelvic pain and had contacted the Maternity Assessment Unit. Ms Anderson covertly recorded this meeting as she suspected her job might be at risk.

In the meeting Mr Sadiq informed her that her absences were an inconvenience to him and that he was going to have to let Ms Anderson go, as it was probably best for her and for the shop too. He stated that it was nothing personal to her, and that she was a nice girl. He explained that he was find her absences hard, as when she was absent from work the manager became annoyed and complained to him. He stated that he feared that her absences would become more frequent and that he didn’t have a big pool of staff, so was unable to cover absences. He further stated that she shouldn’t look for work until the baby was born and that he would re-employ her once the baby is born.

On 2 August 2016 Ms Anderson texted Mr Sadiq to ask him for a letter confirming her dismissal, and on 3 August 2016 Mr Sadiq sent her a letter confirming that she had been dismissed because she was “unreliable”. She appealed her dismissal but her appeal was rejected.

Ms Anderson subsequently brought an Employment Tribunal claim for pregnancy and maternity discrimination.

The decision of the Employment Tribunal in Anderson v Spar Duntocher

The Employment Tribunal upheld Ms Anderson’s claim for pregnancy and maternity discrimination (section 18 Equality Act 2010), finding that she was dismissed because of her pregnancy and/or pregnancy-related illness.

Our guide to the law on pregnancy and maternity discrimination can be found here.

In making its findings the Tribunal had to make key findings as to credibility, as Spar Duntocher was alleging that Ms Anderson was persistently off work sick and, on her part, Ms Anderson was stating that the number of sickness-related absences were exaggerated. The Tribunal found Ms Anderson to be a more credible witness in the circumstances.

The Tribunal found that Ms Anderson had proven facts from which an inference could be drawn that she had been dismissed because of pregnancy and/or pregnancy-related illness, and found that Spar Duntocher could not show there was a reasonable alternative explanation for her dismissal. The Tribunal also found that she had not been paid in respect of holiday she had accrued but not taken to the termination date.

The Employment Tribunal awarded Ms Anderson compensation of £12,191.20, comprised of the following sums:

Loss of earnings: £4,991
Injury to feelings: £5,000
ACAS uplift: £1,998.20
Holiday pay: £202.30

Our solicitors’ view on Anderson v Spar Duntocher

Chris Hadrill, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “The covert recording in this case, as well as Ms Anderson’s credibility, were key – if employees believe that they are being discriminated against by their employer then they should consider making recordings of any face-to-face meetings or telephone meetings so that a contemporaneous record of what happened is made. This isn’t always appropriate but can, in the right circumstances, be absolutely key.”

The judgment of the Employment Tribunal can be found here.

About

In the latest of our series of posts on Employment Tribunal judgments released, we examine ten Employment Tribunal judgments released in the last week (between 29 January 2018 and 4 February 2018) that our solicitors found interesting:

Miss C Sutton v Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust: 1800471/2017 – the Employment Tribunal held that the Claimant had been discriminated against and unfairly dismissed when she was dismissed because of the number of days that she had been absent from work (Employment Tribunal judgment)
Mr R Bilson v London Borough of Lambeth: 2302164/2017 – the Employment Tribunal held that the Claimant’s claims of discrimination (relating to a perception of him based upon his religion of Rastafarianism) should be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success, and that a deposit order be imposed in relation to his remaining claims (Employment Tribunal judgment)
Mrs N Raja v Slough Borough Council: 3323837/2016 – the Employment Tribunal held that the Claimant’s dismissal was unfair (as the Respondent failed to follow the correct procedure) but that it was not discriminatory (as the Claimant failed to show that any adjustments would have made it possible for her to return to work) (Employment Tribunal judgment)
Ms R Soluade v DOCS International UK Ltd: 3323902/2017 – the Employment Tribunal held that the Claimant’s claims of discrimination and harassment failed (Employment Tribunal judgment)
Mr S Davies v Cyprus Fisheries Ltd: 3201070/2017 – the Employment Tribunal held that the Claimant had been dismissed by the Respondent after he was told “you can finish on Saturday”, and that his dismissal had been unfair (as no procedure had been followed) (Employment Tribunal judgment)
Mr R Porter v Secretary of State for International Trade: 3324662/2017 – the Employment Tribunal held that the Claimant had been discriminated against by the Respondent (by, among other things, being dismissed) because he sought to take adoption leave (Employment Tribunal judgment)
Mr D Watts v Long Eaton Plant Hire Ltd: 2600235/2017 – the Employment Tribunal held that the Claimant had been discriminated against by his previous employer after he informed them of the fact that he had been diagnosed with early onset dementia (Employment Tribunal judgment)
Mr PJ Wright v Belle Vue (Manchester) Ltd: 2402997/2017 – the Employment Tribunal held that the Claimant had been constructively dismissed and subjected to disability-related harassment (“stress/anxiety/depression”) after the Claimant was referred to as being “unstable” (Employment Tribunal judgment)
Mrs L Hancock v Warrington and Halton Hospital NHS Foundation Trust: 2400182/2017 – the Employment Tribunal held that the Claimant had been subjected to indirect disability discrimination and disability-related harassment (Employment Tribunal judgment)
Mrs Lisa Penrose v Dignity Funerals Ltd: 3200572/2017 – the Employment Tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s claims for constructive dismissal and victimisation, holding that the decision to not pay the Claimant a bonus had had nothing to do with her complaint that she was being discriminated against (Employment Tribunal judgment)

About

In the case of Mr P Ratcliffe v Baker Hughes Ltd:4100573/2016 the Employment Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Mr Ratcliffe’s claim for unfair dismissal due to the COT3 that had been signed on his behalf by his trade union representative.

The facts in Ratcliffe v Baker Hughes Ltd

Mr Ratcliffe was employed by Baker Hughes Limited (“Baker Hughes”). He was made redundant on 18 December 2015 and was dissatisfied with his dismissal. He was a member of the Unite trade union and approached his Trade Union for assistance; he was assisted by a trade union representative, David Lawson, who helped Mr Ratcliffe to engage in early conciliation. Terms of settlement were agreed through discussions involving ACAS, Baker Hughes’ counsel Neil Adam, and Mr Lawson. As a consequence of these discussions settlement terms were agreed and a COT3 form drafted; as part of the COT3 terms a reference was also agreed.

On 17 March 2016 Mr Lawson signed the COT3 form on behalf of Mr Ratcliffe, and Mr Ratcliffe counter-signed on 6 April 2016. On 17 March 2016 ACAS confirmed that a binding agreement had now been reached between the parties; the monies payable under the settlement agreement were subsequently paid to Mr Ratcliffe. After the agreement had been signed Mr Ratcliffe complained that he had not agreed to the offer made by Baker Hughes, and he wrote to the company on 30 April 2016 to confirm this. He subsequently pursued Employment Tribunal proceedings.

On 17 May 2016 Baker Hughes’ solicitors applied to the Tribunal for a preliminary hearing on the basis that the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the claim (on the grounds that a COT3 agreement had been completed).

The decision of the Employment Tribunal in Ratcliffe v Baker Hughes Ltd

The Employment Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider Mr Ratcliffe’s claims as a valid COT3 agreement had been completed: Mr Ratcliffe could not show that Mr Lawson did not (at the least) have ostensible authority to agree to the terms of the COT3 agreement offered as his representative – the COT3 form was properly entered into, and the agreed settlement terms were implemented.

This article summarises the circumstances in which a completed settlement agreement can be set aside

Our solicitors’ view on Ratcliffe v Baker Hughes Ltd

Chris Hadrill, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “Once settlement agreement (or COT3) terms have been agreed and completed it can often be difficult to challenge th0e validity of the agreement (there are only limited circumstances in which this can be done. If you have entered into a settlement agreement or COT3 agreement and want to resile from it then it is recommended that you receive expert legal advice as soon as possible.”

The judgment of the Employment Tribunal can be found here.

About

In the case of Ms L Naraine v Smart Medical Clinics Ltd: 2301156/2016 the Employment Tribunal held that Ms Naraine had been automatically unfairly dismissed for a reason connected to her pregnancy and period of maternity leave, awarding her over £29,800 in compensation.

The facts in Naraine v Smart Medical Clinics Ltd

Ms Naraine commenced employment with Westover Medical Ltd, a private medical practice, on 21 February 2011 (initially in the Notting Hill office and then in the Wandsworth office). Westover Medical Ltd was liquidated in 2013; both prior to and after the liquidation of Westover Medical Ltd Ms Naraine was paid by the same payroll company (PG London Trading Ltd), which was owned by certain directors of Smart Medical Clinics Ltd (“SMC”).

In September 2014 Ms Naraine discovered that she was pregnant and informed her line manager; her line manager subsequently informed other members of staff and the directors of SMC. Mr Parker, a director of SMC, congratulated her and asked her whether she was going to return from maternity leave (as, if she was not, he wished to find a permanent replacement). Ms Naraine informed him that she was at that time intending to return to SMC after her period of maternity leave.

Ms Naraine commenced maternity leave on 1 June 2015; during her period of maternity leave Ms Wright was employed as her maternity cover and she commenced work at SMC prior to Ms Naraine commencing maternity leave.

In the middle of April 2015 Dr O’Brien, a GP at the Wandsworth clinic, overhead a conversation between Ms Naraine and Ms Wright in which Ms Naraine said that she would be going on maternity leave sooner than expected and that she didn’t intend to return to work. Dr O’Brien reported this conversation to Mr Parker, and Mr Parker became concerned and upset by this. He reviewed SMC’s CCTV to observe the conversation for himself.

On 30 April 2015 Ms Naraine noticed that she had not been paid and therefore phoned the receptionist at the Brompton Cross clinic who told her that they had been paid. She therefore asked to speak to Mr Parker and did so. On 1 May 2015 Ms Naraine wrote to Mr Parker and detailed what had occurred in that telephone conversation (including that he had accused her of “conspiring” with Ms Wright, that she had no intention of “coming back”, that he had reviewed the CCTV footage of her conversation with Ms Wright, and that he had enough evidence to allow him to dismiss her for gross misconduct).

Following 1 May 2015 there was correspondence between Mr Parker and Ms Naraine, and on 22 June 2015 Ms Naraine gave birth. Ms Naraine did not hear further from SMC until 16 March 2016, when she received her P45. This P45 showed that her leaving date was 31 January 2016. At 17:15 on 16 March 2016 Ms Naraine wrote to Mr Parker asking why she had received her P45, and on 24 March 2016 Mr Parker wrote back to inform her that, among other things, he was terminating her employment.

Ms Naraine subsequently brought Employment Tribunal claims for unfair dismissal (section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996), automatic unfair dismissal (section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996), and pregnancy and maternity discrimination (section 18 Equality Act 2010).

The decision of the Employment Tribunal in Naraine v Smart Medical Clinics Ltd

The Employment Tribunal upheld Ms Naraine’s claims for unfair dimissal, automatic unfair dismissal, and pregnancy and maternity discrimination.

Unfair dismissal

The Tribunal found that there was no fair procedure undertaken before Ms Naraine’s dismissal, and therefore upheld her claim for unfair dismissal.

Automatic unfair dismissal

The Employment Tribunal held that the real reason for the termination of Ms Naraine’s employment was that he considered her a dishonest liar because she had indicated to him that she intended to exercise her right to return to work from maternity leave, but in other conversations she had stated that she might not. The Tribunal held that 14 months had elapsed between this conversation and the date on which her employment was terminated, and that she was entitled to keep her options open during maternity leave, and that the reason for her dismissal was therefore entirely connected with her representations about her plans to return to work.

Pregnancy and maternity discrimination

The Tribunal held that there were inferences from which it could conclude that discrimination might have occurred (as per the automatic unfair dismissal claim), and that SMC could not provide a reasonable alternative explanation to the dismissal.

Remedy

The Employment Tribunal awarded Ms Naraine £29,821.36 in compensation, comprised of the following awards:

Basic award for unfair dismissal: £948
Loss of statutory rights: £350
Financial losses: £13,191.17
Injury to feelings: £15,332.19

Our solicitors’ view on Naraine v Smart Medical Clinics Ltd

Chris Hadrill, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “Employees on maternity leave have a right to return to work (unless specific exceptions apply); employers must ensure that they treat employees fairly, particularly when dealing with periods of absence from work due to pregnancy-related illnesses or maternity leave.”

The judgment of the Employment Tribunal on liability can be found here and the remedy judgment can be found here.

About

In the case of Gooding v The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd: 3401365/2016 the Employment Tribunal held that Ms Gooding had been subjected to discrimination when her role was made redundant when she went on a period of maternity leave.

The facts in Gooding v The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd

Ms Gooding commenced employment with The Flexistowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd (“the Company”) on 25 June 2012 as a full-time Pensions and Payroll Assistant.

On 14 September 2015 Ms Gooding informed the Company that she was pregnant. She commenced maternity leave on or about 7 December 2015 and it was intended that she return to work on 1 October 2016. A temporary worker was recruited to cover her pension duties whilst she was away but this person was only required to work part-time (initially 3 days per week and then 2 days per week); no-one was recruited to undertake her payroll duties.

On 12 July 2016 Ms Wilkes and Ms Gooding had at telephone conversation. In this telephone conversation Ms Gooding was told that she would be able to come into work for a Keeping In Touch (“KIT”) day, but that she would not be able to undertake payroll duties on said date. On 14 July 2016 Ms Gooding wrote to Ms Wilkies to ask why she had been told not to come into work for her KIT day to do the payroll.

Whilst Ms Gooding was on maternity leave it was decided by Mr Seaman ([POSITION]) that Ms Gooding’s role was to be altered to that of only a pensions-focused role.

On 20 July 2016 there was a meeting between Mark Duffield, Mr Ashbee (Human Resources), and Ms Wilkes. In this meeting Ms Gooding was told that when she returned to work she would be offered two days per week in ‘Pensions’, and that there were no resource requirements in Payroll.

On 21 July 2016 Ms Gooding wrote to Mr Ashbee to ask what the position was to be were she to return to work full-time. Mr Ashbee wrote back by email on the same date to state that he was surprised that she was considering returning to work full-time as this had not been put forward as an option at the meeting the day before. Mr Ashbee again wrote to Ms Gooding on 22 July 2016 to state that she could be offered a full-time position but only as Pensions Assistant (5 days per week).

On 2 August 2016 Ms Gooding replied, taking issue with the fact that she had been verbally advised that there was no position available in Payroll but that this had not been stated in the letter.

On 10 August 2016 Ms Gooding again asked if she could return to work full-time, but confirmed that she understood that she may not be able to return to Payroll. She asked for her options to be confirmed so she could make her choices. Ms Wilkes confirmed in reply on the same day that she would address Ms Gooding’s concerns in an email that was scheduled to take place on 17 August 2016.

On 16 August 2016 Ms Gooding submitted her notice of resignation and confirmed that she would not be attending the meeting the next day. In her letter of resignation Ms Gooding confirmed that she believed she was not being allowed to return to her former role, that she felt passionate about her role in Payroll, and that working solely in Pensions would be “mundane and de-skilling”.

Ms Gooding subsequently brought claims for breach of Regulation 10 of the Maternity and Paternity Leave Regulations 1999 (“MPL Regulations”), constructive dismissal, and maternity discrimination (section 18(4) Equality Act 2010), among others.

Gooding v The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd

The Employment Tribunal held that there was a redundancy situation and that the Company had breached Regulation 10 by failing to consider suitable alternative employment for her at the Company or even consulting with her. The Tribunal therefore also held that there must have been a breach of section 18(4) of the Equality Act 2010 – it had been decided before she went on maternity leave that the Company did not need her position any longer after she went on maternity leave.

The Employment Tribunal also held that Ms Gooding had been constructively dismissed – her duties had been unilaterally altered without any form of re-organisation or redundancy and this amounted to a fundamental breach of contract. Ms Gooding had accepted this breach and resigned.

Our solicitors’ views on Gooding v The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd

Chris Hadrill, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “Employers must make sure that, if they wish to make employees who are on maternity leave redundant, they undertake a fair consultation process and they at least consider whether there is any suitable alternative employment vacant that the relevant employee(s) can be slotted into – a failure to take these basic steps will constitute (at the least) a breach of regulation 10 of the Maternity and Paternal Leave Regulations 1999.”

The judgment of the Employment Tribunal can be found here.

About

Summary

How Chris Hadrill successfully represented a client in her claim for detriment and/or dismissal due to protected disclosures (colloquially known as “whistleblowing”) in the Employment Tribunal on a ‘no win no fee’ basis and secured a settlement of £10,000.

The situation

DS worked as a volunteer in the shop of a well-known charity, managing a team of other volunteers in the shop. Part of the recruitment process for volunteers was that the charity was supposed to carry out a CRB check on each applicant in order to determine whether the volunteer had a criminal record of any kind.

In July 2014 a volunteer was recruited (“AB”) by the charity and assigned to DS’s shop. No checks were undertaken on AB before he started work at the shop and DS later learned that several referees had refused to provide references for AB upon request from the charity.

In September 2014 DS became concerned that AB was acting erratically in the shop and she asked him to resign as a volunteer (one of the concerns that DS had was that she had caught AB reading her emails on her computer). However, AB continued to attend the shop and engage in erratic conduct. DS then instructed AB that he was being dismissed as a volunteer.

In October 2014 DS’s house was burgled and vandalised, with a number of personal items being stolen. DS informed the police of this incident and she was told that the police suspected that AB had burgled her house. DS was subsequently asked by management at the charity not to talk to the media about what had happened and then, after she took a pre-booked period of annual leave, she was told that the charity would understand if she did not return to her role at the charity. DS then began to suspect that the charity was trying to ‘cover up’ its failure to do a CRB check.

In November 2014 DS complained that the charity had failed to obtain the appropriate references for AB and that their failure had caused her extreme distress.

After DS’s complaint to the charity she felt that the charity ‘closed ranks’ against her, and that she was felt that she was being isolated and excluded. She submitted a formal written grievance regarding the unfair conduct she believed that she was being subjected to in late November 2014. DS was then told that she was being disciplined on allegations that she had threatened other staff members and put the charity’s reputation at risk because of her behaviour. DS was subsequently given a warning as a result of the disciplinary investigation, which she was extremely unhappy about.

In March 2015 DS’s employment was terminated without notice by the charity.

What we did

Chris Hadrill, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, represented DS on a ‘no win no fee’ basis in her Employment Tribunal claim against the charity, advising her to bring claims for detriment due to protected disclosure, automatic unfair dismissal, and wrongful dismissal. Chris also advised DS to seek compensation for loss of earnings, injury to feelings, aggravated damages, and personal injury.

Chris dealt with the procedure of the claim and represented DS throughout the claim, dealing with the Employment Tribunal and negotiating the matter directly with the solicitors that the charity instructed it to help it defend the claim.

The result

The Company made a number of offers of settlement as the case proceeded, and an offer of £10,000 in full and final settlement of DS’s claims was agreed. Settlement agreement terms were then agreed, under which DS would receive the agreed sum of money and a reference.

Chris Hadrill, the employment solicitor who represented Anna in her matter, made the following comment on the case: “It was a pleasure to represent the client in this matter, and we were delighted with the outcome – employers must ensure that workers, employees and contractors are not subjected to any detriment or dismissed if anyone ‘blows the whistle’, otherwise they may fact an Employment Tribunal claim.”

Please note that all of the names used for clients and third parties in this article and all other articles are anonymised (unless expressly stated otherwise) to protect client confidentiality and in order to avoid breaching confidentiality clauses (if relevant)

About

In the case of Mrs J McArdle v Asco Joucomatic Ltd: 2401431/2017 the Employment Tribunal held that Mrs McArdle had been discriminated against because of her pregnancy and awarded her £7,500 in compensation.

The facts in McArdle v Asco Joucomatic Ltd

Asco Joucomatic Limited (“Asco”) makes industrial coils, valves, cylinders and cabine. Ms McArdle worked for Asco as an agency worker provided by Response Recruitment. She commenced working at Asco in 2012.

In February 2014 allegations were made by agency workers and employees that they had contracted asthma or that they had asthma that had been exacerbated by working conditions. Three employees then pursued work-related personal injury claims against the company, or at least threatened that it was their intention to do so. There was an investigation implemented in order to address the allegations, and the outcome of this investigation was that practical steps should be taken in order to see whether there was a problem, and if there is a problem how to solve it; however, this investigation only looked at respiratory disease but did not investigate the effect on those people who were susceptible to or likely to have asthma.

Asco did not have a rule about the deployment of pregnant workers on site at any point – they would deal with employees based on their particular circumstances and facts. It would, when informed that employees were pregnant, implement a standard risk assessment which stated that they may work on moulding and winding but not on soldering jobs.

On 3 October 2016 Ms McArdle informed her supervisor at work, Mr Ashworth, that she was pregnant. Mr Ashworth acknowledged this, congratulated her, and informed her that she could work on moulding as she had been doing on her previous shift. He informed her that Mr Mannion ([POSITION]) would do a risk assessment.

Later in the morning on 3 October 2016 Ms McArdle noticed labelling on a chemical compound that she was using that it was potentially harmful to the environment. She brought this to Mr Ashworth’s attention and he stated that Mr Mannion was doing a risk assessment.

Whilst Ms McArdle was working on site that day Mr Mannion approached Mrs Blackledge, the HR Manager, and asked her how he should manage the fact that hey had two pregnant agency workers on site. Mrs Blackledge contacted the agency to see what it proposed, and the agency sought advice from the Federation of Small Business and ACAS. The agency reported back to Mr Mannion and Mr Mannion started to prepare a risk assessment. He also informed Mrs Blackledge that he was going to report that there was an ongoing sampling of air, that there was no guarantee of the safety of pregnant employees, and that Asco was not in a position to offer suitable alternative work. A policy was therefore effectively implemented that Asco was not prepared to engage pregnant workers on site. Before the risk assessment was completed Mr Mannion invited Mr Davies, the manager at the agency, on to site in order to inform him that Ms McArdle’s assignment would be terminated.

Ms McArdle met with Mr Davies at 12.30pm on 3 October 2016, when Mr Davies congratulated her on being pregnant and informed her that her assignment at Asco would end immediately. Ms McArdle’s employment was therefore terminated before the risk assessment was concluded, and before there could be any consultation or discussion with Ms McArdle.

The decision of the Employment Tribunal in McArdle v Asco Joucomatic Ltd

The Employment Tribunal held that Ms McArdle had been discriminated against udner section 18 of the Equality Act 2010:

failing to consult with her regarding the engagement of pregnant workers;
failing to provide a risk assessment on 3 October 2016 upon which the respondent claimed to rely, and failing to do so until 10 January 2017;
failing to follow a procedure or give due consideration to finding an alternative safe place of work; and
by terminating her assignment in the manner in which it was terminated.

The parties agreed that Asco would pay Ms McArdle £7,500 in compensation.

Our solicitors’ view on McArdle v Asco Joucomatic Ltd

Chris Hadrill, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “Employers must make sure to undertake risk assessments in the workplace if they are aware that an employee is pregnant, that the employee’s work is of a nature that could involve harm or danger to the health and safety of the new or expectant mother, and that the risk arises from work processes or conditions.”

The judgment of the Employment Tribunal can be found here.

About

In the case of Watts v Long Eaton Plant Hire Ltd: 2600235/2017 the Employment Tribunal held that Mr Watts’ previous employer had discriminated against him by failing to make reasonable adjustments for his disability.

The facts in Watts v Long Eaton Plant Hire Ltd

Mr Watts worked as a Plant Machine Driver for Long Eaton Plant Hire Limited (“LEPH”). He suffered from cognitive difficulties and was off sick for some month; on 8 July 2016 he was diagnosed with early onset dementia.

On or about 12 August 2016 Mr Watts telephoned Mr Denneny at LEPH and informed him that he had been diagnosed with early onset dementia, and something to the effect that he was resigning (although there was a dispute as to exactly what was said). There was no further communication between LEPH and Mr Watts until 31 October 2016 when a letter was sent to him confirming that his voluntary resignation had been accepted, and that his termination date would be recorded as 30 September 2016.

Mr Watts subsequently issued an Employment Tribunal claim for (ordinary) unfair dismissal and disability discrimination (in that he alleged that LEPH had failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disability).

The decision of the Employment Tribunal in Watts v Long Eaton Plant Hire Ltd

The Employment Tribunal upheld Mr Watts’ claims for unfair dismissal and failure to make reasonable adjustments

Unfair dismissal

The Employment Tribunal held that Mr Watts’ effective date of termination was 1 November 2016 – there was a dispute as to what Mr Watts had intended to convey in the conversation on 12 August 2016 but the Tribunal held that he had not evinced an intention to resign immediately or had given notice of such; the Tribunal held that he was expressing an intention to resign with effect on some unspecified future date. On the facts LEPH had terminated his employment by the way of the letter dated 31 October 2016, which Mr Watts had received on 1 November 2016. His employment had therefore been terminated and the termination date was 1 November 2016.

Having held that LEPH had terminated Mr Watts’ employment the Tribunal found that his dismissal was clearly unfair: there had been no procedure undertaken prior to Mr Watts’ dismissal and the dismissal could not therefore have been within the range of reasonable responses in the circumstances.

Failure to make reasonable adjustments

The Employment Tribunal held that LEPH was aware that Mr Watts had been diagnosed with early onset dementia – this was clear from his May and July fit notes and, further, Mr Denneny had been informed of such by Mr Watts in their telephone conversation on 12 August 2016. LEPH therefore accepted that Mr Watts was at all times relevant to the claim a disabled person. The Tribunal also held that LEPH ought to have known that Mr Watts had a disability.

The Employment Tribunal also held that the PCP that applied was that of requiring or expecting Mr Watts to carry out his job driving heavy plant machinery, that this caused him substantial disadvantage as a disabled person because his condition meant that he could nor no longer should do this, that in order to avoid the substantial disadvantage LEPH should have offered Mr Watts alternative work and, finally, should it have done so then Mr Watts would not have dismissed. The Tribunal therefore held that LEPH had failed in its duty to consider or make reasonable adjustments for Mr Watts.

Our analysis of the law relating to failure to make reasonable adjustments can be found here.

Remedy

The Employment Tribunal awarded Mr Watts loss of earnings (although the exact sum was not calculated) and a sum of £5,000 in respect of injury to feelings.

Our solicitors’ view on Watts v Long Eaton Plant Hire Ltd

Chris Hadrill, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “If employers know that an employee has a disability (or they ought reasonably be aware of such) then they should take prompt and effective steps to discover the extent of that disability, its prognosis, and any adjustments that they can make in the workplace to compensate for the disability.”

The judgment of the Employment Tribunal can be found here.

About

Summary

How Chris Hadrill successfully represented a client in her claim for pregnancy and maternity discrimination in the Employment Tribunal on a ‘no win no fee’ basis and secured a settlement of £37,500.

The situation

Anna started work at a computer games company (“the Company”) in January 2013 and went on her first period of maternity leave in May 2015, returning to work in June 2016. Her maternity leave was paid on an enhanced basis, effectively meaning that she received six months’ full salary for her period of maternity leave (as well as her full complement of statutory maternity leave).

In September 2016 Anna discovered that she was pregnant and informed the Company of this fact; she said that she intended to go on maternity leave in February 2017. After she informed the Company of her pregnancy the owner of the Company (“AB”) started to make comments to her about the fact that she was due to take another long period of maternity leave on full pay, and started to become aggressive with Anna over minor issues.

In November 2016 the Company informed Anna that it was undertaking a redundancy exercise and that she might be dismissed from her employment as a result; she was then informed later in the month that she had been selected for redundancy (subsequent disclosure of documents relevant to the Employment Tribunal claim showed that Anna’s selection for redundancy had been pre-determined (i.e. that she had been chosen for redundancy before the process had started)). In December 2016 AB informed Anna that she was being dismissed for gross misconduct on the basis that she had allegedly tried to defraud the Company (allegations which Anna denied). Anna appealed her dismissal but AB refused to hear her appeal.

As a result of her dismissal Anna suffered from stress and depression. She was unable to get a job after she was dismissed and suffered a considerable loss of earnings as a result.

The law relating to pregnancy and maternity discrimination

Under the Equality Act 2010, employees can make a claim to the Employment Tribunal if they believe that they have been discriminated against or victimized because of their pregnancy or because they have taken, are taking or intend to take maternity leave (or, indeed, any other ‘protected characteristic’ (see this article for an explanation of what a ‘protected characteristic’ is). Potential claims include the following:

Section 13 Equality Act 2010 – to make a claim to the Employment Tribunal for direct pregnancy and maternity discrimination if they believe that they have been treated less favourably because they are pregnant or because they have taken, are taking or intend to take maternity leave (this would normally be a direct sex discrimination claim)
Section 18 Equality Act 2010 – to make a claim to the Employment Tribunal for pregnancy and maternity discrimination if they believe that they have been subjected to unfavourable treatment because they are pregnant or because they have taken, are taking or intend to take maternity leave (“pregnancy and maternity discrimination”)
Section 27 Equality Act 2010 – to make a claim to the Employment Tribunal for victimization if they believe that they have been subjected to a detriment because they have, for example, threatened to make a claim for pregnancy and maternity discrimination in the Employment Tribunal

Click on this link for a guide to pregnancy and maternity discrimination in the workplace

What we did

Chris Hadrill, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, represented Anna on a ‘no win no fee’ basis in her Employment Tribunal claim against her former employer, advising her to bring claims for pregnancy and maternity discrimination, victimisation, and unfair dismissal. Chris also advised Anna to seek compensation for loss of earnings, injury to feelings, aggravated damages, and personal injury.

Chris dealt with the procedure of the claim and represented Anna throughout the claim, dealing with the Employment Tribunal and negotiating the matter directly with the solicitors that the Company instructed it to help it defend the claim.

The result

The Company made a number of offers of settlement as the case proceeded, starting with an offer of £2,000, rising to £20,000, and then an offer of £37,500 eight weeks before Anna’s full merits hearing was due to commence at the Employment Tribunal. Settlement agreement terms were then agreed, under which Anna would receive the agreed sum of money and a reference (as well as the usual confidentiality and non-derogatory clauses).

Chris Hadrill, the employment solicitor who represented Anna in her matter, made the following comment on the case: “It was a pleasure to represent the client in this matter, and we were delighted with the outcome – employers must ensure that they treat pregnant employees fairly and they must not subject employees to detriments because they are pregnant or intend to exercise their legal right to maternity leave.”

Please note that all of the names used for clients and third parties in this article and all other articles are anonymised (unless expressly stated otherwise) to protect client confidentiality and in order to avoid breaching confidentiality clauses (if relevant)

About

In the latest of our posts on cases from the Employment Appeal Tribunal archive, we examine the case of Ramdoolar v. Bycity Ltd [2004] UKEAT 0236_04_3007, a pregnancy discrimination case.

Summary

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Tribunal did not err in law in deciding that the employer did not have actual knowledge (or belief) of the Claimant’s pregnancy, and that her claim for automatic unfair dismissal was therefore bound to fail. The EAT also held that it was not, for reasons of statutory interpretation and practicality, sufficient for Claimants to argue that their employer ought to have known of their pregnancy.

Factual background in Ramdoolar v Bycity Ltd

Mrs Ramdoolar commenced employment with Bycity Ltd (“Bycity”) on 14 October 2002 as an Accounts Assistant. She was dismissed on 10 January 2003. The reason that Bycity gave for the termination of Mrs Ramdoolar’s employment was that she had been unwilling or unable to do tasks that had been given to her and that she had been late for work on occasions (and had not given her pregnancy as an explanation); Bycity denied that Mrs Ramdoolar had informed it of her pregnancy at any time before she had been dismissed. Mrs Ramdoolar, for her part, alleged that she had informed Bycity of her pregnancy on 15 November 2002 (the day that she had become aware of it).

Mrs Ramdoolar brought claims for pregnancy and maternity discrimination and automatic unfair dismissal.

The Employment Tribunal’s decision

The Employment Tribunal, faced with a stark contrast in evidence between the parties, found in favour of Bycity (that it had not been informed of Mrs Ramdoolar’s pregnancy). The Tribunal therefore found that she had been dismissed because of her performance and not because of her pregnancy.

Mrs Ramdoolar appealed the Employment Tribunal’s decision on the principal basis that the Tribunal should have found that Bycity ought reasonably to have known about the fact of Mrs Ramdoolar’s pregnancy, even if she had not expressly told her previous employer that she was pregnant (i.e. that it should have had ‘constructive knowledge’ of her pregnancy).

The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision

The Employment Appeal Tribunal examined section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Regulations 19 and 20 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 and held that actual knowledge (or at the very least actual belief) of a woman’s pregnancy were necessary before the woman could (successfully) bring a claim for automatic unfair dismissal or detriment due to pregnancy – employers should not be held to a standard where they were obliged to infer that an employee was pregnant from the symptoms or behaviour of an employee, and that if an employee wanted her employer to know that she was pregnant then it was up to her to inform them of such.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal therefore held that the law as stated in Del Monte Foods Ltd v Mundon was still valid and that the appeal should be dismissed.

Our solicitors’ comments on Ramdoolar v Bycity Ltd

Chris Hadrill, an employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “This case again reinforces the fact that, for both practical and legal purposes, employees should if possible inform their employer of their pregnancy in writing as soon as practically and personally possible in order to obtain protection under the relevant statutes – there is a slew of case law, as in this case, where the employer has succeeded in defending the case because they have (whether truthfully or untruthfully) persuaded the Employment Tribunal that the employee bringing the claim had not informed them of her pregnancy.”

The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Ramdoolar v Bycity Ltd can be found here.

About

In the case of Ms Z De Groen v Gan Menachem Hendon Limited: 3347281/2016 the Employment Tribunal held that Ms de Groen had been subjected to sex discrimination and religious belief discrimination by her employer, an ultra-Orthodox Jewish nursery.

The facts in De Groen v Gan Menachem Hendon Limited

Ms de Groen commenced employment at Gan Menachem Hendon Limited (“Gan Menachem”) as a teacher on 1 September 2012. Gan Menachem is an Orthodox Jewish nursery school; many Orthodox Jews regard co-habitation before marriage as contrary to their faith.

During her employment Ms de Groen was co-habiting with a man (who she eventually married). She was raised as an ultra-Orthodox Jew (and so was conversant with its beliefs and practices) but at the time she joined the school she did not regard herself as ultra-Orthodox, although she was a practicing Jew; some ultra-Orthodox Jews view a fundamental tenet of ultra-Orthodoxy being that non-married couples should not co-habit (others, however, do not believe that). Ms de Groen, for her part, did not see the prohibition of non-marriage co-habitation as a fundamental tenent of ultra-Orthodoxy.

When Ms de Groen joined the school Mrs Lieberman (Nursery Manager) and Mrs Toron (Managing Director) had the understanding that she would gradually return to the practices of ultra-Orthodoxy. Ms de Groen was, however, uncertain about her religious beliefs and perceived ultra-Orthodoxy as a belief system that had been forced upon her, which led her to question aspects of it.

In or about January 2016 Ms de Groen met the man that she was ultimately to marry (in July 2017). Some time prior to 26 May 2016 they began living together. She was aware that when she started to co-habit with her partner some members of the ultra-Orthodox community might view this as being contrary to their fundamental beliefs.

On 26 May 2016 Ms de Groen attended a barbeque with her boyfriend, with whom she was living in Pimlico. The barbeque was held to celebrate a Jewish holy day and some trustees of the nursery (including a Mr Freundlich) and parents of students were present. The barbeque was, however, independent of the nursery. During the course of the day Ms de Groen introduced her boyfriend to Mr Freundlich; her boyfriend informed Mr Freundlich, upon being asked, that he lived with Ms de Groen in Pimlico.

At some point after 26 May 2016 Ms Toron was told that Ms de Groen was living with her boyfriend. On 27 June 2016 Ms de Groen was asked to attend a meeting with Mrs Toron and Mrs Lieberman. She did so. In this meeting the subject of Ms de Groen living with her boyfriend was discussed, although Mrs Toron and Mrs Lieberman had no idea how this would be addressed or dealt with. As a result the discussion moved to being an unfocussed discussion of Ms de Groen’s private life, with the main themes being that living with a man whom you were not married to was wrong, having children out of wedlock was wrong, that she was 23 and time was passing for her to have children, and that if she had a problem with the idea of marriage then she should seek counselling. It was suggested to Ms de Groen in this meeting that one of the ways of dealing with the problem might be that Ms de Groen told people that she was not living with her boyfriend (that she should effectively lie). Ms de Groen was left in at tearful and distressed state by the meeting.

On 29 June 2016 Ms de Groen met with Mrs Toron and Mrs Lieberman again. Ms de Groen told them that she wanted a written apology and a promise that she would never be harassed in that way again. She referred to the possibility of an Employment Tribunal claim if matters could not be resolved by way of an apology. The two ladies did not apologise and instead they told her that they should not have been so nice to her; they threatened her with disciplinary proceedings.

On 30 June 2016 a letter was sent by DAS (the school’s HR advisers) to Ms de Groen. This letter commenced disciplinary proceedings, alleging that she had undertaken “an act of SOSR (some other substantial reason)”. The particulars of the allegations were that she had contravened the nursery’s ethos and religious beliefs, and that she had damaged the nursery’s reputation. It was alleged that the school had tried to resolve the matter informally, that she had never been asked about her private life, and that in alleging that this had been done she was manipulating the facts. The letter also alleged that she had closed off any avenue of informal resolution. In fact she had been asked about these matters and the school was responsible for closing off the avenue of informal resolution. She was invited to a disciplinary hearing to take place on 5 July 2016.

The meeting was postponed due to Ms de Groen’s absence, and a disciplinary hearing took place in her absence on 26 July 2016. This disciplinary hearing consisted of DAS sending a written report to the school recommending that she be dismissed – this report also contained significant factual inaccuracies (for example that Mrs Toron and Mrs Lieberman had not asked about Ms de Groen’s private life, and that Ms de Groen was truing to manipulate a case against her employer). Mrs Toron adopted the conclusions of the report and dismissed Ms de Groen summarily on 27 July 2016.

Ms de Groen subsequently pursued claims against Gan Menachem for direct sex discrimination, direct religious belief discrimination, indirect religious belief discrimination, sex-related harassment, and religious belief-related harassment.

The decision of the Employment Tribunal in De Groen v Gan Menachem Hendon Limited

The Employment Tribunal upheld Ms de Groen’s claims for for direct sex discrimination, direct religious belief discrimination, indirect religious belief discrimination, sex-related harassment, and religious belief-related harassment.

Direct religious belief discrimination

The Tribunal found that there were facts from which it could infer that discrimination had taken place, including the failure to call evidence from Mr Freundlich, the failure to evidence exactly what complaints were made about parents regarding the cohabitation, and the lack of any clear plan as to how to conduct the 27 June 2016 meeting (including Mrs Toron and Mrs Lieberman referring to their religious beliefs in that meeting and pressing her on her plans regarding cohabitation and marriage).

The Employment Tribunal further held that Ms de Groen had been subjected to the following detriments because of her religious beliefs: 1) not giving her notice of the meeting on 27 June 2016; 2) the conduct of the meeting on 27 June 2016; 3) the content of the meeting on 29 June 2016; 4) the commencing of the disciplinary proceedings; 5) her dismissal; and 6) the criticisms of her and the dismissal letter which had adopted the DAS summary.

Indirect religious belief discrimination

The Tribunal upheld her claim for indirect religious belief discrimination, holding that the school had applied to Ms de Groen a requirement that she be prepared to make a dishonest statement about her relationship and/or private life in order to remain employed, and that this caused her a particular disadvantage (as per the direct discrimination claim). The Tribunal further held that the discriminatory conduct could not be objectively justified.

Direct sex discrimination

The Tribunal found that there were facts from which it could infer that discrimination had taken place, including the way that she had been treated on 27 June 2016 and that many of the comments made at this meeting specifically related to women (including pregnancy outside of marriage, questioning her about her age, and intentions as to childbirth).

The Employment Tribunal further held that Ms de Groen had been subjected to the following detriments because of her sex: 1) not giving her notice of the meeting on 27 June 2016; 2) the conduct of the meeting on 27 June 2016; 3) the content of the meeting on 29 June 2016; 4) the commencing of the disciplinary proceedings; 5) her dismissal; and 6) the criticisms of her and the dismissal letter which had adopted the DAS summary.

Harassment

The Employment Tribunal held that the conduct of the meetings on 27 and 29 June 2016 amounted to sex-related harassment and religious belief-related harassment.

Our solicitors’ view on De Groen v Gan Menachem Hendon Limited

Chris Hadrill, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “Employers must take great care to ensure that they do not impose discriminatory practices in the workplace otherwise, as in this case, they may face time-consuming, embarrassing, and costly Employment Tribunal claims.”

The judgment of the Employment Tribunal can be found here.

About

In the case of Mr R Mohamud v JJ Food Service Limited: ET/3302040/2014 the Employment Tribunal held that Mr Mohamud should be awarded £35,717.70 because he was victimised (under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010).

The facts in Mohamud v JJ Food Service Limited

Mr Mohamud worked for JJ Food Service Limited from December 2012 as a book-keeper, with his employment coming to an end on 14 August 2014.

The Employment Tribunal held (in an unpublished liability judgment) that Mr Mohamud had been subjected to victimisation by JJ Food Service Limited (that, essentially, he had been dismissed because he had undertaken a protected act (a complaint that he was being discriminated against)).

The Employment Tribunal was therefore convened to undertake a remedy hearing in this case.

The decision of the Employment Tribunal in Mohamud v JJ Food Service Limited

Mr Mohamud claimed losses of £268,366.40 in his schedule of loss.

The Employment Tribunal awarded Mr Mohamud the following sums:

Injury to feelings: £8,000.00 (within interest thereon of £910.64)
Past loss of earnings: £25,362.02 (with interest thereon of £1,443.74)

Injury to feelings

Mr Mohamud was diagnosed in 2008 and suffering (at that time) from stress and depression. After his dismissal he visited his doctor and was diagnosed with anxiety and depression, with his diagnosis later changing to stress, anxiety, poor sleep, and depression. In January 20165 he felt suicidal and therefore contacted his GP to complete anxiety and depression questionnaires. In March 2015 Mr Mohamud’s GP concluded that his depression had been caused by “his recent employment issues”.

The Employment Tribunal found that Mr Mohamud had suffered an injury to his feelings that fell within the lower quartile of the middle Vento band, awarding him £8,000.

Loss of earnings

Mr Mohamud’s pre-dismissal salary with JJ Food Service Limited was £21,000.

Mr Mohamud started looking for work in June/July 2015 and was able to secure new employment in January 2016. He worked as a bookkeeper but his employment ended in February 2017. He then obtained new employment in March 2017 as a financial analyst on a one-year fixed-term contract on a salary of £26,000 per annum, with his position to be reviewed at the expiry of that one-year term.

The Employment Tribunal limited Mr Mohamud’s losses to 11 January 2016 as he was in regular employment from that date. The Tribunal therefore held that he should received loss of earnings from 13 August 2014 to 11 January 201 at £334.65 per week, giving a figure for past loss of earnings of £24,764.10.

Other remedy issues

The Employment Tribunal held that an ‘ACAS uplift’ should not be applied to the financial loss of earnings award, as Mr Mohamud was not dismissed because of his conduct or capability.

The Tribunal further held that an award of aggravated damages should not be made (as the Tribunal found that JJ Food Service had not acted in a high-handed, malicious or insulting way towards him). The Employment Tribunal also held that there was insufficient medical evidence to warrant awarding Mr Mohamud damages for personal injury.

Our solicitors’ view on Mohamud v JJ Food Service Limited

Chris Hadrill, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “This case shows that employers can face potentially substantial awards if they are found to have discriminated against (or, as in this case, victimised) employees.”

The judgment of the Employment Tribunal can be found here.

About

In the case of Miss M Reeves v The Hannah Corporation Ltd: 3400012/2017 the Employment Tribunal held that an employee had been dismissed because she had notified her employer that she was pregnant (rather than because of a genuine redundancy situation).

The facts in Reeves v The Hannah Corporation Ltd

Ms Reeves commenced employment as a receptionist at The Hannah Corporation Ltd’s (“Hannah Corp”) in its estate agency department on 18 February 2016. In May 2016 the company closed its estate agency business but Ms Reeves received a telephone call from the Human Resources Manager, who informed her that here was a job available in Hannah Corp’s Building and Contents department in its Wellingborough office. She therefore transferred to this role in May 2016.

In June 2016 Mr Young (the departmental manager) informed Ms Reeves that he was happy with her performance in the job.

In July 2016 Ms Reeves discovered that she was pregnant and informed Mr Young and Ms Harrison . On 9 August 2016 she was compelled to attend Kettering General Hospital with a suspected ectopic pregnancy. She took a few hours off work to do this and returned to work after, having been assured that there was nothing astray with her pregnancy.

Ms Reeves returned to work after a couple of days and on 24 August 2016 she was called into a meeting with Mr Young and Ms Harrison. Ms Harrison informed Ms Reeves that there was not enough work available for her and that, as he was in a probationary period in her new role, the business would have to let her go; this was despite Ms Reeves’ three-month probation period actually having concluded in May 2016. A colleague of Ms Reeves’ who was doing the job (a Ms Camp) was kept on. Ms Reeves was asked to leave the office immediately without further explanation.

Later that day Ms Reeves emailed Mr Young to request a letter confirming her dismissal. Ms Harrison subsequently sent her an email confirming that she had been dismissed because the business had not grown as quickly as had been expected and that there wasn’t enough work to accommodate Ms Reeves on a full-time basis.

Ms Reeves subsequently submitted claims to the Employment Tribunal for pregnancy discrimination (section 18 of the Equality Act 2010) and automatic unfair dismissal (section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996).

The decision of the Employment Tribunal

The Employment Tribunal upheld Ms Reeves’ claims for pregnancy discrimination and automatic unfair dismissal.

Pregnancy discrimination

The Tribunal accepted Ms Reeves’ evidence and Hannah Corp failed to file a defence to the claim, meaning that there was no opposition to Ms Reeves’ evidence and legal arguments. The Tribunal therefore held that there had not been a genuine redundancy situation and that the true reason for Ms Reeves’ dismissal had been the notification of her pregnancy to the business (and therefore an act of pregnancy discrimination).

Automatic unfair dismissal

The Employment Tribunal held that the sole or principal reason for Ms Reeves’ dismissal was because she was pregnant, upholding her claim for automatic unfair dismissal.

Remedy

The Employment Tribunal awarded Ms Reeves £17,811.78 as compensation for her claims, comprised of the following sums:

Past loss of earnings: £9,274.14
Future loss of earnings: £2,537.64
Injury to feelings: £6,000.00

Our solicitors’ view on Reeves v The Hannah Corporation Ltd

Chris Hadrill, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “Employers must treat employees (as well as workers and contractors) fairly, irrespective of any protected characteristic that any employee may have – a failure to treat employees fairly and equally can, as in this case, lead to a substantial award of compensation.”

The judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Reeves v The Hannah Corporation Ltd can be found here.

About

In the case of Ms M Walworth v Scrivens Ltd: 1301685/2017 the Employment Tribunal held that Ms Walworth had been discriminated against by her employer when it failed to ensure parity of treatment for her whilst she was on maternity leave.

The facts in Walworth v Scrivens Ltd

Ms Walworth commenced employment with Scrivens Ltd (“Scrivens”), a chain of opticians, on 26 January 2009. It was later agreed between the parties that she would become a Trainee Dispensing Optician with effect from 13 September 2010, and in connection with this the parties agreed a “Training/Service Agreement” on 16 August 2010 in order for Ms Walworth to be trained as a Dispensing Optician to the standards required by the Association of British Dispensing Opticians.

The Training Agreement contained a term to the effect that, should Ms Walworth leave her employment after 15 December 2014 but before 14 December 2016 she would be due to repay £11,000 in terms of her training costs to Srivens, and if she left after 15 December 2016 but before 14 December 2017 then she would be due to repay £5,500 in terms of her training costs.

At the end of August 2015 Ms Walworth notified Scrivens that she was pregnant, with the estimated due date being April 2016.

On 11 September 2015 Ms Hibberd (HR Manager) wrote to Ms Walwroth acknowledging her pregnancy and stating her Training Agreement would be reviewed to take into account her period of maternity leave.

Ms Walworth subsequently notified Scrivens that she wished to commence maternity leave on 18 April 2016, and on 11 January 2016 Ms Hibberd wrote to Ms Walworth to set out some of the arrangements for her maternity leave – this included a stipulation by Scrivens that, as she was going on maternity leave, the training repayment period under her Training Agreement would be ‘paused’ and the appropriate remaining amount of this period (“the pause clause”).

On 9 February 2016 Ms Walwroth wrote to Scrivens to complain that she believed that she had been subjected to pregnancy and maternity discrimination, although she did not complain about the pause clause in that letter. A grievance process followed and Ms Walworth’s complaints of discrimination were not upheld. Ms Walworth then began maternity leave on 18 April 2016, with her daughter born shortly after this.

On 6 January 2017 Ms Walworth called Ms Hibberd to discuss her return to work. In this telephone conversation it was discussed (among other things) that Ms Walworth was struggling to make childcare arrangements for her daughter and whether Ms Walworth could take a sabbatical.

On 10 February 2017 Ms Hibberd wrote to Ms Walwroth to state that she understood that Ms Walworth was considering her options but she may not return to work from maternity leave. The letter also stated that she would be expected to give twelve weeks’ notice of termination if she did wish to resign and, further, that if she did resign she would have to repay £11,000 under the Training Agreement.

On 13 March 2017 Ms Walworth wrote to Scrivens to inform it that she was submitting her notice of termination of employment, effective immediately. The reason given for her resignation was that she believed that the pause period was discriminatory and that there was no mention of any pause period in the Training Agreement.

Scrivens withheld Ms Walworth’s outstanding holiday pay accrued to the termination date as a set-off against the £11,000 training repayment that it claimed that it was owed.

Ms Walworth subsequently submitted Employment Tribunal claims for pregnancy and maternity discrimination, constructive dismissal, and unlawful deduction from wages.

The decision of the Employment Tribunal in Walworth v Scrivens Ltd

The Employment Tribunal upheld Ms Walworth’s claims for pregnancy and maternity discrimination, constructive dismissal, and unlawful deduction from wages.

Pregnancy and maternity discrimination

The Employment Tribunal held that the implementation of the ‘pause period’ policy constituted unfavourable treatment which Ms Walworth was subjected to because she exercised her right to take period of ordinary or additional maternity leave, as this policy breached regulation 9 of the Maternity & Parental Leave Regulations 1999 (in that it required her (in comparison with someone who did not take maternity leave) to undertake additional service before being free of her obligation to repay her training fee).

Constructive dismissal

The Employment Tribunal held that the implementation of the ‘pause period policy’ constituted a (repudiatory) breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, that Ms Walworth had resigned because of this breach, and that she had not delayed too long in resigning. The Tribunal therefore upheld the claim for constructive dismissal.

Unlawful deduction from wages

The Tribunal held that Ms Walworth had a legal entitlement to be paid holiday pay upon the termination of her employment but that she was not paid such.

The Tribunal ordered that a remedy hearing be held in due course.

Our solicitors’ view on Walworth v Scrivens Ltd

Chris Hadrill, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “This case demonstrates that employers must ensure that the terms and conditions that are applied to employees on maternity leave do not treat them less favourably than employees who have not taken a period of maternity leave – a failure to ensure equal treatment may result, as with this case, in an Employment Tribunal claim.”

The judgment of the Employment Tribunal can be found here.

About

In the latest of our posts on cases from the Employment Appeal Tribunal archive, we examine the case of Johal v Commission for Equality & Human Rights [2010] UKEAT 0541_09_0207, a maternity discrimination case.

Summary

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the causative factor for the detriment that Ms Johal had suffered (applying the “reason why” causation test) was a genuine administrative error, rather than because Ms Johal was on maternity leave.

Factual background in Johal v Commission for Equality & Human Rights

Ms Johal commenced employment with the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (“CEHR”) as a Personal Assistant on 1 April 2002 and in April 2005 she became PA to the Director of Corporate and Government Relations.

On 3 December 2007 Ms Johal informed Human Resources that she wished to take maternity leave from 1 December 2007 to 5 January 2009, and requested that she be kept on the IT network whilst she was on maternity leave (as she wished to be kept updated on vacancies and training packages whilst she was on maternity leave).

At the time that Ms Johal went on maternity leave the CEHR was undergoing an internal reorganisation, as the CEHR had been formed on 1 October 2007 from the amalgamation of three legacy commissions (the EOC, CRE, and DRC). In December 2017 Debbie Wood, Director of the Commissioner’s office (and Ms Johal’s ‘de factor’ line manager at the time) was considering, as part of the reorganisation, creating the post of Commissioner’s Office Manager. This post was subsequently approved as a ‘level four’ position, whereas Ms Johal’s role was evaluated at ‘level three’.

On 29 February 2008 Ms Johal emailed Human Resources and the IT Services Desk to ask that her work email account, which had lapsed in December 2007, be reactivated. This was done the same day.

On 4 March 2008 Ms Johal attended a one-to-one meeting with Ms Wood. On that day Ms Johal was informed of the new Commissioner’s Office Manager post, and the need for the office manager was explained to her. Ms Johal did not say that she was interested in this post, nor did she suggest she wished to move into a policy role. The next day Ms Wood emailed her to inform her that she would be kept updated on any further developments and job vacancies.

On 20 March 2008 Ms Wood received approval for the Office Manager role and this vacancy was advertised in the summer of 2008. Ms Johal did not access the website on which the vacancy was advertised and, due to what the Tribunal found was an administrative error, the CEHR did not notify her of the vacancy. She therefore did not apply for the role and it was filled by another employee in the office.

After finding that the Office Manager role had been filled Ms Johal complained that she had not been notified of such while on maternity leave. Ms Wood stated that she would follow up with Human Resource, she having previously informed them to keep Ms Johal updated on job vacancies. Mr Unwin in the IT Department apologies for the breakdown in communication – having reinstated her access in February 2018 her access has then been disabled again accidentally at a later date.

Ms Johal complained in a formal grievance on 24 September 2008 that she had been overlooked for a promotion opportunity. The grievance outcome concluded that there had been a communication failure by the CEHR but that Ms Johal had failed to use the link to the recruitment site that had been sent to her. Ms Johal appealed this outcome and the appeal outcome again shared responsibility for the failure between Ms Johal and the CEHR.

The Employment Tribunal’s decision

The Employment Tribunal held that the failure to keep Ms Johal notified of vacancies at the CEHR whilst she was on maternity leave was a detriment, but the “reason why” she was subjected to this detriment was because of a genuine administrative error on the CEHR’s part – others on maternity leave received appropriate information.

The Employment Tribunal therefore dismissed Ms Johal’s claim for sex discrimination.

Ms Johal appealed the Employment Tribunal’s decision.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Employment Tribunal had been entitled to conclude on the facts before it that the “reason why” Ms Johal had been subjected to the detriment was because of a genuine administrative error.

Our solicitors’ comments on Johal v Commission for Equality & Human Rights

Chris Hadrill, an employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “The Johal case is a much-quoted case when examining causation in discrimination cases – employers must take reasonably practicable steps to ensure that employees who are on maternity leave are treated in no less favourable manner than employees who have not taken maternity leave, otherwise they could face a claim for discrimination.”

The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Johal v Commission for Equality & Human Rights can be found here.

About

In the case of Miss A Parsons v Oswestry Equestrian Centre Ltd: 1301514/2017 the Employment Tribunal held that the claimant had been subjected to pregnancy discrimination and automatically unfair dismissed when she was dismissed from her job as a stable-hand (because she was pregnant).

The facts in Parsons v Oswestry Equestrian Centre Ltd

Ms Parsons commenced employment with Oswestry Equestrian Centre Ltd (“the Centre”) in February 2016. She worked approximately 16 hours per week for the company as a stable-hand. The joint owners of the company were Mrs Maria Castillo and her husband Mr Richard Connell.

In January 2017 Ms Parsons discovered that she was pregnant, and on 27 January 2017 she informed Mr Connell of this fact during one of her shifts. She informed him that she was expecting to give birth in mid-September and wished to continue working for as long as she safely could.

On 10 February 2017 Mr Connell approached Ms Parsons and told her that her services would no longer be required going forward, as there were insufficient hours for her. He told her that she was dismissed effective immediately. However, one of Ms Parson’s colleagues who had been away from work for a period of time, Ellie Hughes, was asked to come in to work shortly after as the Centre was short-staffed and needed stable-hands.

Ms Parsons subsequently submitted claims to the Employment Tribunal for pregnancy discrimination (section 18 of the Equality Act 2010) and automatic unfair dismissal (section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996).

The decision of the Employment Tribunal

Mr Connell argued in the defence to the claim that Ms Parsons had not been dismissed from her employment and that she had chosen to resign; the Tribunal found that there had in fact been a dismissal.

The Employment Tribunal upheld Ms Parson’s claims for pregnancy discrimination and automatic unfair dismissal.

Pregnancy discrimination

The Tribunal accepted Ms Parson’s evidence and held that she was dismissed on 10 February 2017. The Employment Tribunal further held that the reason for Ms Parson’s dismissal was her pregnancy – Mr Connell foresaw that Ms Parsons would be less useful and a potential liability for the Centre because she was pregnant, and chose to dismiss her on this basis.

Automatic unfair dismissal

The Employment Tribunal held that the sole or principal reason for Ms Parson’s dismissal was because she was pregnant, upholding her claim for automatic unfair dismissal.

The Tribunal further held that Ms Parsons had been dismissed without notice when she was entitled to a period of notice. It was therefore held that Ms Parsons had been wrongfully dismissed.

Our solicitors’ view on Parsons v Oswestry Equestrian Centre Ltd

Caroline Lewis, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “Employers should treat pregnant employees fairly and, in particular, should not subject them to detriments because they are pregnant or intend to take a period of maternity leave – dismissing an employee because she is pregnant would not only be an act of pregnancy discrimination but also automatically unfair, and could lead to a substantial award of compensation.”

The judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Parsons v Oswestry Equestrian Centre Ltd can be found here.

About

In the case of Mrs M Richards v Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership Trust the Employment Tribunal held that the Claimant could not bring a second discrimination claim against her previous employer as the settlement agreement she had signed precluded her from doing so.

The facts in Mrs M Richards v Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership Trust

Mrs Richards commenced employment with Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership Trust (“the Trust”) as a Counsellor in July 2006, working at Victoria Hospital in Swindon. Mrs Richards had been diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome, and there was medical evidence to support such a diagnosis.

In 2007 Mrs Richards issued an Employment Tribunal claim in which she raised complaints of constructive unfair dismissal and (after an amendment of claim) disability discrimination.

On 4 June 2007 COT3 settlement agreement terms were agreed, under which the sum of £12,000 was to be paid by the Trust and Mrs Richards was to withdraw her claim. The COT3 settlement agreement also specified that the settlement covered “all and any claims which the Claimant has or may have against the Respondent”, including claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Disability Discrimination Act; the settlement agreement also stated that it applied to, but was not limited to, those claims which had been brought within the proceedings. The claim was then withdrawn but not formally dismissed by the Employment Tribunal. At the time of the settlement agreement Mrs Richards was represented by a solicitor.

Soon after the claim was withdrawn (but not dismissed) Mrs Richards wrote to the Employment Tribunal to complain that she had made a mistake when the agreement was finalized. On 29 December 2007 Mrs Richards wrote to the Tribunal to complain that she believed that she had been tricked into the agreement and/or that she had been coerced in signing it; she alleged that she had not had capacity at the time to enter into the agreement. A preliminary hearing was listed to determine Mrs Richards’ application to challenge the validity of the settlement agreement.

Mrs Richards did not attend the preliminary hearing listed and her application was dismissed by way of a reasoned Judgment dated 28 May 2009 – the Employment Judge found that Mrs Richards had been advised and represented by a solicitor during the settlement process and that the first settlement offer had been put forward by her. The allegations that she had made regarding her being subjected to duress/fraud/misrepresentation to complete the settlement agreement were rejected, and the Tribunal found there was no evidence to support her claim that she lacked the requisite capacity to complete the agreement. Mrs Richards did not appeal that decision, nor did she seek to have it reviewed or reconsidered.

On 2 May 2016 Mrs Richards issued a further claim against the Trust, alleging that she had been unfairly dismissed and subjected to discrimination arising from disability. Mrs Richards alleged in the claim form that she had not achieved adequate redress in her initial claim and that the COT3 settlement agreement that had been achieved did not represent a fair settlement. The Trust subsequently filed its response to the claim, seeking an order for Mrs Richards’ most recent claim to be struck out.

The application to strike out was considered in a preliminary hearing

The decision of the Employment Tribunal

The Employment Tribunal held that the COT3 settlement agreement agreed between the parties in 2007 on its wording prevented the new litigation from proceeding, as it covered complaints brought under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Equality Act 2010 (which re-enacted the relevant provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1996). The COT3 settlement agreement therefore acted as a bar to the new proceedings and should not be allowed to proceed.

Our solicitors’ view on Mrs M Richards v Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership Trust

Chris Hadrill, the partner in the employment team at Redmans, commented on the case: “The wording for settlement agreements is crucial in determining whether new litigation can be brought or not – parties seeking to agree settlement agreements should therefore be extremely careful to ensure that the wording suits their intentions.”

The judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Mrs M Richards v Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership Trust can be found here.

About

In the case of Ms R Malik v Mauricare Ltd and others: 1800542/2017 the Employment Tribunal held that XYZ.

The facts in Malik v Mauricare Ltd and others

Ms Malik commenced employment with Plus Care Homes in June 2010, working at a care home called Blossom Care Home; her employment was transferred to Blossom Care Homes Limited in July 2014, a company owned by a Ms Sachdev. Blossom Care Homes Limited was subsequently acquired by Mauricare Limited. Mr Boodhoo was Ms Malik’s line manager at the relevant times, and Ms Malik’s latest position was that of manager at the Blossom Care Home.

As part of the transfer of the business to Mauricare there was an application by Mauricare in March 2016 to the Care Quality Commission (“CQC”) to vary its registration to add Blossom Care Home as an additional location and to continue Ms Malik’s registration to manage the regulated activity at Blossom Care Home under Mauricare; this was a joint application in respect of both the registration of the home and Ms Malik’s registration. In fact Ms Malik was due shortly to go on maternity leave; she took a period of accumulated holiday and then began her formal period of maternity leave on 4 April 2016.

By way of a letter dated 28 October 2016 the CQC refused the joint application, giving two reasons: firstly, there were concerns about a number of the homes operated by Mauricate and, secondly, there was no suitable plan for managing the Blossom Care Home while Ms Malik was on maternity leave (it was noted that Mr Boodhoo showed them evidence that there was an intention to recruit a manager to cover Ms Malik’s maternity leave, but that no plans had been shared on how the care home was to be operated in the interim). The CQC’s letter of 28 March 2016 was not shown to Ms Malik and she was not made aware that there were concerns regarding her position as registered manager.

Subsequent to the CQC’s letter the local authority placed an embargo and were not taking up any more beds at Blossom Care Home.

On 29 November 2016 Ms Malik emailed Mr Boodhoo and Ms Sachdev pointing out that her maternity leave was due to come to an end on 1 January 2017, that she intended to return to work soon after that, and she would like a return to work meeting as soon as possible. Mr Boodhoo replied to say that he would be in touch.

On 14 December 2016 Ms Malik emailed Mr Boodhoo again to remind him about her request for a return to work meeting; Mr Boodhoo had done nothing in the intervening period to arrange a return to work meeting but emailed her on the same day to suggest that the meeting take place on 22 March 2016. Ms Malik replied to state that she would be available the week of 26 December 2016, suggested a potential telephone meeting, and asked him to clarify how much accrued but untaken annual leave she had remaining.

Ms Malik again emailed on 29 December 2016 to set out the background and ask that Mr Boodhoo get in touch with her. She said that because of childcare issues she would now like to book three week’s annual leave from 2 January 2017 to 20 January 2017, and asked whether Mr Boodhoo was available to meet her any day after 8 January 2017 to discuss her return to work. Mr Boodhoo replied on 31 December 2016 suggesting a date of 5 January 2017 (a date that she had said she was not available) and making a reference to holiday pay (which Ms Malik had not asked for). Mr Boodhoo concluded that he wanted to meet Ms Malik as a matter of urgency to discuss her return to work. Ms Malik was surprised by this as she had been trying to arrange such a meeting with Mr Boodhoo for a month.

A meeting was arranged to take place on 10 January 2017, and did in fact take place on that date at a Starbucks. It was discussed at that meeting that Ms Malik wanted to extend her maternity leave to the end of March 2017; it was also discussed the problems with the CQC and the local authority’s bed embargo. It was agreed that Ms Malik would send a written request for an extension of maternity leave, which Mr Boodhoo would then consider.

On 12 January 2017 Ms Malike emailed Mr Boodhoo and Ms Sachdev to ask that she extend her maternity leave on 3 April 2017 and that she would like to take her 21 days’ outstanding annual leave on 4 April 2017. Mr Boodhoo replied later the same day attaching a letter dated 11 January 2017. This letter (which was purported to be sent on 11 January 2017) stated that Ms Malik’s employment would be terminated as of 11 January 2017 due to financial problems at the business and enclosing a final payslip. Ms Malik did not receive the posted letter.

Ms Malik submitted her appeal on 18 January 2017, appealing on the basis that she did not agree with the decision and that she believed that the decision was unreasonable and incorrect. Ms Malik emailed again on 2 February 2017 to ask for a response to her appeal. Mr Boodhoo replied by email to state that a letter had been sent by post. Ms Malik did not receive this letter.

Ms Malik subsequently made claims for pregnancy and maternity discrimination, unfair dismismsa, and automatic unfair dismissal.

The decision of the Employment Tribunal

The Employment Tribunal held that Ms Malik’s dismissal was unfair, as no potentially fair reason was provided and no procedure had been followed. The Tribunal held, further, that Ms Malik’s dismissal was discriminatory (as she would have not been dismissed if she had not gone on maternity leave – it was easier for the business to dismiss her when she wasn’t there) but not automatically unfair (as her dismissal was not principally or wholly because of her period of maternity leave but because of the steps taken by the CQC).

The Employment Tribunal awarded Ms Malik the following sums as compensation:

Basic award for unfair dismissal of £2,129.09
Loss of statutory rights: £370
Wrongful dismissal: £2,220
Payment of accrued but untaken holiday: £962
Compensation for loss of earnings: £2,903.02
Compensation for injury to feelings: £5,276.16

Our solicitors’ view on Malik v Mauricare Ltd and others

Rana Tandon, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “This case shows that, even where businesses are suffering financial difficulties, they must make decisions which are fair and reasonable (particularly if the employer is looking to dismiss an employee who is on maternity leave).”

The judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Malik v Mauricare Ltd and others can be found here.

About

In the case of Ms M Walworth v Scrivens Ltd: 1301685/2017 the Employment Tribunal awarded a claimant over £11,000 in compensation for loss of earnings and injury to feelings after finding that she had been subjected to discrimination.

The facts in Walworth v Scrivens Ltd

Ms Walworth worked for Scrivens Ltdl the company implemented a policy that if an employee left their employment within a particular period of time then they would have to repay a proportion of their training costs incurred.

In August 2015 Ms Walworth informed Scrivens Ltd that she was pregnant and that she would go on maternity leave in April 2016. Human Resources wrote to Ms Walworth on 11 January 2016 to confirm that she was going on maternity leave and that the training repayment period under her training agreement would be ‘paused’ for her period of maternity leave.

Whilst Ms Walworth was on maternity leave she informed Human Resources that she may not return to work from maternity leave; a letter was subsequently sent to Ms Walworth confirming that if she did leave her job then she would have to give twelve weeks’ notice of termination and that she would have to repay the entirety of her training costs.

Ms Scrivens subsequently wrote to Scrivens Ltd to complain that she was submitting her notice of termination and that she believed that the effect of the ‘pause clause’ was discriminatory.

Ms Walworth subsequently brought a claim for constructive dismissal and pregnancy maternity discrimination (among other claims). The Employment Tribunal upheld her claims for discrimination (section 18 Equality Act 2010) and constructive dismissal.

Our analysis of the liability judgment in Walworth v Scrivens Ltd can be found here.

The Employment Tribunal’s purpose at this hearing was to consider what remedy Ms Walworth was entitled to.

The decision of the Employment Tribunal

In the remedy judgment the Employment Tribunal held that Ms Walworth should be awarded the following compensation:

A basic award of £2,615.36 (in respect of the claim for unfair dismissal)
Financial losses: £4,148.50
Compensation for injury to feelings: £4,374.36 (inclusive of interest)
Unpaid holiday pay: £325.59 (inclusive of interest)

Our solicitors’ view on Walworth v Scrivens Ltd

Rana Tandon, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “Employers must ensure that they implement policies in a manner which does not result in any particular disadvantage being imposed to any particular group of persons, otherwise they may face a potential claim for discrimination in the Employment Tribunal.”

The remedy judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Walworth v Scrivens Ltd can be found here.