Claimant v Davita International Limited

The tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had raised a prima facie case that her dismissal was because of her pregnancy. The decision to dismiss was made before the respondent knew of the pregnancy, on 27 May 2022, and was based on genuine concerns about the claimant's management style raised by her team. The claimant lacked two years' service and bore the burden of proving the prohibited reason, which she failed to do.

The tribunal found that the decision to dismiss was made before the respondent knew of the claimant's pregnancy. The concerns raised by team members about the claimant's management style were not connected to her pregnancy or its effects. The tribunal accepted the respondent's explanation that the dismissal was based on Mr Jegou's assessment of the business interests in light of team concerns, not because of pregnancy.

The tribunal concluded that this complaint was precluded by Equality Act 2010 section 18(7) as it fell within the scope of pregnancy discrimination. Alternatively, the claimant failed to prove facts from which the tribunal could conclude that sex was the reason for treatment. The respondent's explanation satisfied the tribunal that the reason for dismissal was business concerns about team management, not the claimant's sex.