Claimant v Fresh Cut Video Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the complaint of automatically unfair dismissal to be well-founded. The dismissal was connected to pregnancy-related reasons which rendered it automatically unfair under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found the complaint of pregnancy discrimination to be well-founded. The respondent treated the claimant unfavourably because of her pregnancy in dismissing her.
The complaint of direct sex discrimination was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed by the tribunal upon withdrawal.
The complaint of victimisation was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed by the tribunal upon withdrawal.
The complaint of wrongful dismissal was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed by the tribunal upon withdrawal.
The complaint of failure to deal with a flexible working request was not well-founded. The tribunal determined that the respondent had properly considered and dealt with the flexible working request in accordance with the statutory requirements.
Facts
Mrs K Farmer was employed by Fresh Cut Video Ltd, a media company. She became pregnant during her employment and subsequently raised a flexible working request. The respondent dismissed Mrs Farmer, which she alleged was connected to her pregnancy. She brought claims of automatically unfair dismissal, pregnancy discrimination, sex discrimination, victimisation, wrongful dismissal, and failure to deal with flexible working request.
Decision
The tribunal found in favour of the claimant on her claims of automatically unfair dismissal and pregnancy discrimination. The dismissal was found to be because of pregnancy making it both automatically unfair and discriminatory. The flexible working claim failed as the respondent had properly handled the request. Three other claims were withdrawn during the hearing.
Practical note
Dismissing an employee because of pregnancy renders the dismissal both automatically unfair and discriminatory, and employers must be particularly careful to ensure any dismissal during pregnancy is entirely unconnected to that protected characteristic.
Case details
- Case number
- 3304669/2024
- Decision date
- 4 December 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- media
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep