Claimant v White Rose Homecare Limited

The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair. The dismissal was procedurally and/or substantively unfair under ordinary unfair dismissal principles, with the tribunal upholding the claimant's claim under section 98 ERA 1996.

The tribunal found that the dismissal was not automatically unfair on grounds related to pregnancy and maternity leave. The respondent successfully defended this claim, showing the dismissal was not for a maternity-related reason.

The tribunal dismissed multiple claims of unfavourable treatment and direct discrimination related to pregnancy. The respondent was able to demonstrate that the treatment was not because of the claimant's pregnancy.

The tribunal dismissed claims of direct pregnancy discrimination. The evidence did not establish that the less favourable treatment was because of the claimant's pregnancy.

The tribunal found that the dismissal itself amounted to victimisation. The claimant had done a protected act and the dismissal was because of that protected act, satisfying the requirements of section 27 Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal dismissed other claims of victimisation beyond the dismissal itself. These other alleged detriments were not found to be because the claimant had done a protected act.

The claim for failure to provide a written statement of particulars was dismissed. The tribunal found either that a statement had been provided or that the respondent had not breached its obligations under section 1 ERA 1996.