Claimant v Marks and Spencer Group PLC
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed on 30 October 2023 immediately after disclosing her pregnancy to Ms Bowie. The sudden change from seeking to resolve workplace issues to termination, with no other explanation offered, led the tribunal to conclude the reason or principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's pregnancy, satisfying s.99 ERA 1996.
The tribunal found the respondent treated the claimant unfavourably by dismissing her. The dismissal occurred immediately following disclosure of pregnancy during a meeting that had been about resolving workplace issues. The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that Ms Bowie's demeanour changed upon hearing of the pregnancy, leading directly to dismissal. This constituted discrimination under s.18 EqA 2010.
Facts
The claimant worked in the respondent's bakery from 15 October 2023 with an agreed restriction on lifting weights over 5kg due to a back condition. After experiencing problems with heavy lifting at the Watford branch on 26-27 October, she met with Branch Manager Caroline Bowie on 30 October 2023 to discuss the issues. During this meeting, she disclosed her pregnancy for the first time. The claimant says Ms Bowie immediately dismissed her, stating 'we don't have any suitable jobs for you' and instructing her to hand over her swipe card and locker key. The respondent contended the claimant resigned.
Decision
The tribunal unanimously found the claimant was dismissed, not resigned. The tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence, noting the sudden change from problem-solving to termination occurred immediately after pregnancy disclosure with no other explanation. The dismissal was automatically unfair under s.99 ERA 1996 as the reason was connected to pregnancy, and constituted pregnancy discrimination under s.18 EqA 2010. Remedy to be determined at a future hearing.
Practical note
Employers must exercise extreme caution when terminating employment shortly after pregnancy disclosure - the temporal proximity and lack of alternative explanation will lead tribunals to infer pregnancy was the reason for dismissal, particularly where no risk assessment or reasonable adjustments were considered.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3302722/2024
- Decision date
- 2 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Bakery assistant (training period/probation)
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No