Claimant v Stay with Us MPB Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that whilst Jane Quaintrell did check the claimant's work and identify hair in the shower on 28 November 2023, this was reasonable quality checking in circumstances where a celebrity was staying, not unfavourable treatment. The tribunal did not find that Jane Quaintrell picked faults unjustifiably or that this was related to the claimant's pregnancy.
The tribunal found that the claimant consented to being removed from work WhatsApp groups when she was off sick. Jane Quaintrell stated this was to allow the claimant to rest without worrying about work. The claimant replied 'thumbs up' and 'yes that's fine' when informed. This was not unfavourable treatment.
The tribunal found on the evidence that Jane Quaintrell did not discuss the claimant's pregnancy and pregnancy-related illness with colleagues. The claimant could not provide evidence supporting her belief that such discussions occurred, only that she 'felt' colleagues must have known.
The tribunal found no breach of health and safety regulations. Jane Quaintrell arranged a pregnancy risk assessment for the next day after being informed of the pregnancy. It could not take place because the claimant was off sick. On 28 November, Jane Quaintrell was not aware the claimant was unwell or bleeding. The microwave (10.8kg) was borderline for heavy lifting and the claimant had said she was fine.
The tribunal found that whilst the failure to provide a company vehicle was unfavourable treatment, this was not because of pregnancy. The vehicle was ordered on 2 November 2023, delivered 29 November and ready 21 December. The delay was due to delivery lead times and sign-writing, not the claimant's pregnancy.
The tribunal found the claimant was not treated unfavourably in relation to sick pay. She had no contractual entitlement to full pay when sick. She was paid Statutory Sick Pay after waiting days until she resigned. There was no less favourable treatment as there were no other employees to compare with and SSP was lawfully applied.
Facts
The claimant was employed as housekeeping supervisor and maintenance coordinator from 13 October 2023 (though the respondent claimed employment started 6 November). She informed her employer on 28 November 2023 that she was pregnant. She was signed off sick with pregnancy-related illness from 29 November and resigned on 8 December 2023. She claimed she was treated unfavourably because of her pregnancy including: being criticised at work, being removed from WhatsApp groups, having her health discussed with colleagues, health and safety breaches, being denied a company vehicle, and not being paid properly when off sick.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the claimant consented to being removed from WhatsApp groups to allow her to rest. Quality checking of her work was reasonable and not unfavourable. No health and safety breaches occurred as a pregnancy risk assessment was arranged promptly. The delay in providing a company vehicle was due to delivery times, not pregnancy. She was lawfully paid Statutory Sick Pay when off sick as she had no contractual right to full pay.
Practical note
Employers must act promptly to arrange pregnancy risk assessments when notified of pregnancy, but reasonable operational decisions (such as removing a sick employee from work chat groups with consent, or normal quality checking) will not constitute pregnancy discrimination if the protected characteristic played no part in the decision.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3314488/2023
- Decision date
- 17 September 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Housekeeping supervisor and maintenance coordinator
- Salary band
- £20,000–£25,000
- Service
- 2 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No