Claimant v Eteach Group Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the redundancy process was commenced against the claimant earlier than it would have been if she was not pregnant, leading to her dismissal on 1 March 2024 instead of 25 April 2024. The tribunal inferred that the claimant's pregnancy had a significant influence on the decision to commence the redundancy process early in relation to only the claimant. Key factors included: lack of contemporaneous documentation supporting the respondent's timeline; contradictory evidence about when decisions were made; the fact that HR mentioned the pregnancy in the meeting where redundancy was decided; and the timing advantage to the respondent in dismissing before the claimant qualified for statutory maternity pay.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a recruitment consultant from September 2022. In September 2023 she was asked to focus on secondary recruitment, a 'cold desk' starting from scratch. On 15 January 2024 she informed the respondent she was pregnant and planned to start maternity leave on 24 June 2024. On 29 January 2024 she was informed she was at risk of redundancy, and was dismissed with notice effective 1 March 2024. The respondent was experiencing financial difficulties and later made wider redundancies across the business from March 2024 onwards, including dismissing the secondary recruitment resourcer on 25 April 2024 and eventually the entire recruitment team.
Decision
The tribunal found that the claimant's pregnancy had a significant influence on and was an effective cause of the decision to commence the redundancy process early in relation to only the claimant on 29 January 2024 and the consequent dismissal on 1 March 2024. The tribunal rejected the respondent's evidence about when decisions were made, finding a lack of contemporaneous documentation and contradictory explanations. However, the tribunal found the claimant would have been dismissed for genuine redundancy reasons by 25 April 2024 in any event, limiting her losses to the 8-week difference.
Practical note
Employers dismissing pregnant employees for redundancy must maintain robust contemporaneous documentation of decision-making processes, as tribunals will scrutinise timing and draw adverse inferences from lack of evidence, contradictory accounts, and decisions that coincidentally occur shortly after pregnancy notification.
Award breakdown
Vento band: lower
Award equivalent: 22.3 weeks' gross pay
Adjustments
The tribunal found that if there had been no discrimination, there is a 100% chance that the claimant would have been dismissed for redundancy in any event by 25 April 2024. The losses that flow from the discrimination are therefore limited to the losses flowing from the fact that the dismissal occurred on 1 March 2024 instead of 25 April 2024.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3305771/2024
- Decision date
- 11 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- No
- Rep type
- self
Employment details
- Role
- Recruitment Consultant
- Salary band
- £25,000–£30,000
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No