Cases2500021/2025

Claimant v Imperial Workforce Ltd

29 July 2025Before Employment Judge AspdenMiddlesbrough

Outcome

Partly successful£6,952

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(pregnancy)succeeded

The tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the claimant by terminating her employment on 1 October 2024. This was pregnancy-related discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, resulting in an award of £6,450 compensation plus interest.

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the dismissal on 1 October 2024 to be unfair, awarding a basic award of £76.06. The low basic award suggests very short service, consistent with automatic unfair dismissal for pregnancy-related reasons.

Direct Discrimination(pregnancy)failed

The claimant alleged discrimination when told she would not be entitled to statutory maternity pay. The tribunal dismissed this claim, finding that informing the claimant about her statutory entitlements did not constitute unlawful discrimination.

Facts

The claimant, F Ali, was dismissed from her employment with Imperial Workforce Ltd on 1 October 2024. The dismissal was pregnancy-related. She had very short service, as evidenced by the minimal basic award of £76.06. She also alleged discrimination when told she would not be entitled to statutory maternity pay.

Decision

The tribunal upheld the claims for pregnancy discrimination and unfair dismissal relating to the termination of employment. However, it dismissed the claim regarding being told about statutory maternity pay entitlements, finding this did not constitute discrimination. Total award was £6,951.58 including interest.

Practical note

Dismissing an employee due to pregnancy is automatically unfair and constitutes pregnancy discrimination, even where service is very short, though the financial awards may be modest where injury to feelings is in the lower Vento band.

Award breakdown

Basic award£76
Injury to feelings£6,450
Interest£426

Vento band: lower

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Equality Act 2010

Case details

Case number
2500021/2025
Decision date
29 July 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep