Cases→3324824/2019

Claimant v The Racecourse Association Limited

2 September 2025Before Employment Judge AnstisReadingremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(sex)failed

Tribunal found the respondent was stating clear distinctions between the claimant's role and the new role, not making assumptions based on sex. The finding that there was no redundancy situation did not alter the conclusion that the reasons given were not related to the claimant's sex.

Direct Discrimination(pregnancy)failed

Tribunal found no need to pool the claimant with others and no pregnancy discrimination in selection process. The claimant's role was completely different to the new role, and failure to offer it was not related to pregnancy or maternity. Respondent's stated reasons were clear distinctions between roles, not pregnancy-related assumptions.

Direct Discrimination(sex)failed

Tribunal found there was nothing to be gained by offering training for a role the claimant had not expressed interest in. This was not sex discrimination and the finding of no redundancy situation did not alter this conclusion.

Facts

The claimant was a Finance Manager dismissed while on maternity leave in what the respondent treated as a redundancy situation. A new combined role of Finance Manager and Business Analyst was created. The claimant argued she should have been offered this role and that various aspects of the respondent's handling were discriminatory. Following an EAT remission establishing there was no genuine redundancy situation, the tribunal reconsidered the discrimination claims.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all discrimination claims on reconsideration. It found that the respondent's stated reasons for not offering the new role were clear distinctions between the roles, not assumptions based on sex, pregnancy or maternity. The finding of no redundancy situation did not alter the conclusion that the respondent's conduct was not unlawful discrimination.

Practical note

A finding that there was no genuine redundancy does not automatically transform what were otherwise non-discriminatory employment decisions into acts of unlawful discrimination, even where the employee was on maternity leave at the time.

Legal authorities cited

Nagarajan v London Regional Transport [2000] 1 AC 501

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.99Employment Rights Act 1996 s.139Equality Act 2010 s.13MAPLE regulation 20(1)(b)MAPLE regulation 10(2)Equality Act 2010 s.18Equality Act 2010 s.136

Case details

Case number
3324824/2019
Decision date
2 September 2025
Hearing type
reconsideration
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Name
The Racecourse Association Limited
Sector
other
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Finance Manager

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister
Search for this judgment on GOV.UK →