Claimant v Knight IT Group Ltd

Tribunal found the reason for dismissal was that the claimant refused to accept the extension of her probationary period, not because she was pregnant or did a protected act. The Managing Director believed he was entitled to extend probation and when the claimant refused, he treated her as having failed probation and dismissed her.

Although the claimant's 3-month probationary period had expired before the meeting on 7 March 2023, she agreed at that meeting to a one-month extension. Tribunal found this amounted to a binding variation of contract, so at the time of dismissal she was on probation and entitled only to one week's notice, not four.

The complaint related to being asked to write notes in English rather than Portuguese. Tribunal found the reason was not race but because the Managing Director wanted to read the notes to see where mistakes were being made. He would have made the same request to an English employee using shorthand he couldn't read.

Although the claimant did protected acts (challenging discriminatory comments), the tribunal found her probation extension and questioning of performance were due to mistakes and extensive holiday during probation, not because of the protected acts. If retaliation was intended, the Managing Director would have dismissed her rather than offering an extended probation.

Tribunal found the extension of probation and dismissal were not because of the claimant's pregnancy or pregnancy-related illness. The treatment related to performance concerns and the claimant's refusal to accept the probation extension.

Tribunal found the Managing Director repeatedly used misogynistic language including calling a predecessor 'stupid', 'cunt' and 'bitch', made inappropriate comments about women's appearance, and dismissed the claimant's concerns. The conduct was unwanted, related to sex, and created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment despite being relatively short-lived.

Tribunal found two specific instances where the Managing Director made derogatory comments to the claimant (asking if Botox affected her brain and threatening wage reduction for 'stupid' questions) amounted to direct sex discrimination. The tribunal was satisfied he would not have spoken to a male employee in the same way.