Claimant v Loft Rooms.co.uk. Ltd, trading as Morespace
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was treated unfavourably by shortening the timescale for performance improvement from late February/early March to before her December leave, shortly after she announced her pregnancy on 12 November 2023. The tribunal also found she was denied an opportunity to put her case before dismissal, and that pregnancy materially contributed to the decision to dismiss her on 11 January 2024. The respondent provided no adequate explanation for bringing forward the improvement dates or for dismissing her based largely on work completed before she was told to improve.
The tribunal concluded that pregnancy was the principal reason for the claimant's dismissal on 11 January 2024. The evidence presented by the respondent as demonstrating failure to improve was largely from before she was told her performance needed improvement. The tribunal found the claimant proved facts for which the respondent gave no adequate explanation, establishing that the dismissal was because of her pregnancy contrary to section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Facts
The claimant, an architectural technician recruited in May 2023, was dismissed on 12 January 2024. She had notified the respondent of her pregnancy on 12 November 2023. Prior to this, on 27 October 2023, her performance had been reviewed and she was told she needed to improve, with a further review planned for late February/early March 2024. Shortly after announcing her pregnancy, the timescale for demonstrating improvement was brought forward, first to end of January, then to before her annual leave in December. She was dismissed immediately on her return from leave with no discussion, ostensibly for performance reasons.
Decision
The tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the claimant because of her pregnancy and that pregnancy was the principal reason for her dismissal. The shortening of improvement timescales after pregnancy announcement, lack of opportunity to respond to concerns, and reliance on pre-improvement-request work as evidence of failure to improve demonstrated pregnancy was a material influence. However, the tribunal concluded she would likely have been dismissed for performance by end of February 2024 regardless, limiting her compensatory award accordingly.
Practical note
Employers must be especially careful when managing performance of pregnant employees to ensure decisions are not materially influenced by pregnancy, maintaining consistent timescales and fair processes, and providing clear evidence of performance issues distinct from the protected characteristic.
Award breakdown
Vento band: lower
Award equivalent: 35.1 weeks' gross pay
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2216954/2024
- Decision date
- 10 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Architectural Technician
- Salary band
- £20,000–£25,000
- Service
- 8 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No