Cases8000822/2025

Claimant v Simply Solutions (Europe) Limited

4 October 2025Before Employment Judge B CampbellScotlandremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Breach of Contractwithdrawn

The complaint of breach of contract and wrongful dismissal at common law was withdrawn by the claimant with consent to dismissal.

Detriment(pregnancy)failed

The tribunal found that the claimant was not able to establish primary facts from which discrimination could be provisionally assumed. Where she could establish such facts, the evidence rebutted the presumption that the treatment (e.g. lack of updates on appeal, no appeal meeting, content of communications) was because of her pregnancy.

Direct Discrimination(pregnancy)failed

The tribunal found that the treatment alleged (including dismissal and various procedural failings) was not unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy. The evidence showed that performance concerns had been raised during probation and dismissal was for legitimate performance reasons, not pregnancy.

Automatic Unfair Dismissal(pregnancy)failed

The sole reason for dismissal was that the claimant had not performed well enough during her probationary period (timekeeping, communication, collaboration, team management, self-development, decision making). Pregnancy was not the sole or main reason for dismissal, nor was it a significant influence.

Facts

The claimant was employed as Client Relations Manager from June 2024 to January 2025 on probation. She had performance concerns raised during probation regarding timekeeping, communication, collaboration, decision-making and self-development. She informed her manager of her pregnancy in October 2024. On 7 January 2025, at short notice, she was told her probation had failed and she was dismissed. She appealed, believing the real reason was her pregnancy, but the appeal was dismissed with detailed reasons about performance failings.

Decision

The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed for legitimate performance reasons during probation, not because of her pregnancy or intention to take maternity leave. The alleged procedural failings (lack of notice of meeting, lack of appeal hearing, lack of updates) were not discriminatory acts. The evidence showed performance issues had been raised and the claimant's pregnancy had no influence on the decision to dismiss.

Practical note

A dismissal during probation for performance reasons can be lawful even if the employee is pregnant, provided there is clear evidence that pregnancy did not influence the decision and that similar performance concerns were addressed with non-pregnant comparators.

Legal authorities cited

Igen Ltd and others v Wong [2005] IRLR 258 (CA)

Statutes

Section 47C Employment Rights Act 1996Regulation 20 MAPLE RegulationsRegulation 19 Maternity & Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999Section 18 Equality Act 2010Section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996

Case details

Case number
8000822/2025
Decision date
4 October 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Client Relations Manager
Service
6 months

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor