Claimant v Carnival PLC (Trading as Carnival UK)

Tribunal found the redundancy selection process was not objective and the claimant was disadvantaged by subjective scoring influenced by her maternity absence. The respondent failed to consider alternatives such as deferring her dismissal as was done for another employee. The scoring was inherently unfair and the process fell outside the band of reasonable responses.

The claimant was entitled under regulation 10 MAPLE 1999 to be offered one of the 16 suitable available vacant team leader posts from the point all team leaders were placed at risk. The respondent failed to offer her a vacant post, rendering the dismissal automatically unfair. Additionally, the principal reason for her lower scores in at least 3 factors arose directly from the fact she took or availed herself of ordinary and additional maternity leave, satisfying regulation 20(2) MAPLE 1999.

Whilst the claimant was treated unfavourably during the protected period and her maternity absence had negative impact on scoring, the tribunal found the low scores were a consequence of her absence rather than because she was on maternity leave. The cause of treatment was not that she was on maternity leave itself, but a consequence of it. There was no evidence those scoring consciously or subconsciously scored her down because of pregnancy. The claim under section 18(2) and 18(4) Equality Act 2010 was dismissed.