Claimant v American Institute for Foreign Study UK Limited

Tribunal found no constructive dismissal occurred. The Claimant relied on alleged breaches relating to pregnancy/maternity discrimination and detriment, but none of these allegations were upheld. The Tribunal found the Respondent had genuine concerns about the Claimant's capability, particularly regarding planning, recording, and use of shared systems. These concerns were unrelated to pregnancy or maternity leave.

Multiple allegations were made under s47C ERA and reg.19 Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999. The Tribunal found some acts amounted to detriments (e.g. HR incorrectly requiring MATB1 form before risk assessment, delay in conducting risk assessment), but concluded these were due to HR's rigid practice, resource constraints, and distraction by other work, not because of pregnancy or maternity. The capability meeting was triggered by genuine performance concerns pre-dating the maternity leave request.

Claims brought under s18 Equality Act 2010 for unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy/maternity. Tribunal found some treatment was unfavourable (e.g. probation extension, capability meeting invitation, delays in risk assessment) but concluded the reasons were unrelated to pregnancy. Performance concerns were genuine and ongoing. HR failures were due to resourcing and rigid practices, not discriminatory motivation. Burden of proof did not shift.

Claimant alleged direct race discrimination (she is mixed race) in four incidents: failure to provide contact information for senior manager at Tufnell House; failure to provide support with bedding crisis at Hayloft House; different handling of complaints at Vega House (managed by black staff) vs Tufnell House; and failure to offer risk assessments. Tribunal found no facts from which it could conclude less favourable treatment because of race. Witnesses were credible and explanations were accepted.

Alleged harassment related to handling of complaints at Vega House (managed by black staff). Tribunal found no relationship with race and nothing inappropriate about the handling of complaints. The treatment did not have the proscribed purpose or effect.

Claimant relied on ACAS Early Conciliation commenced 1 January 2024 as protected act. Alleged detriments: delay in paying SMP, demands for return of equipment, threat to change locks. Tribunal found delay in SMP payment was a detriment but was due to breakdown of settlement negotiations and leverage to secure return of equipment, not because of the protected act. Other matters were not detriments. No facts from which tribunal could conclude treatment was because of protected act.