Claimant v Ola Electric UK Private Limited

The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was redundancy. The parent company OLA decided to cease ergonomics work in the UK and move it to India for business reasons (associated functions already in India, focus on Indian market, anthropometric differences). This decision was not made because of the claimant's pregnancy or maternity leave. There was no suitable alternative employment in the UK or India. The dismissal was not because she was on maternity leave.

The tribunal considered allegations including failure to conduct pregnancy risk assessments. Even assuming these were detriments, the claimant did not discharge the initial burden of proving they were because of sex. The tribunal accepted the respondent's explanation that the failures were due to oversight and lack of HR knowledge, not sex discrimination. The respondent had a poor record of HR compliance affecting all staff, not just the claimant.

The tribunal found the claimant discharged the initial burden (working satisfactorily before maternity leave, warned of redundancy only on return, subject to harassment). However, the respondent proved the dismissal was in no way whatsoever because of pregnancy or maternity. The decision to cease UK ergonomics was made for business reasons unconnected to the claimant's personal circumstances. Her dismissal was not to any extent because of pregnancy or maternity rights.

The tribunal found three instances of harassment succeeded: (1) Mr Willis' 21 March 2023 'boob fairy' comment violated dignity, was gratuitous and objectified the claimant when she was sharing pregnancy concerns; (2) Mr Lippett's 26 July 2023 crude joke about childbirth was unwanted, made light of her difficult pregnancy two weeks before due date, caused hurt and belittlement; (3) Mr Rouse's thumbs up to that message compounded the effect. Other allegations failed either because conduct was not related to sex, did not have proscribed effect, or it was not reasonable for conduct to have that effect.

The tribunal dismissed claims that the claimant was excluded from go-karting (she was invited, choosing the activity was not because of her pregnancy) and deliberately not invited to Christmas function (she was invited via work email and WhatsApp group, respondent had no reason to think she wouldn't receive it). These were not detriments or not done because of pregnancy/maternity.

The tribunal found wages paid in September 2023 were not less than should have been paid — they included a bonus. Even construing this as about April-August 2023, the claimant did not show crystallisation of contractual entitlement to a specific sum, and the bonus was paid shortly thereafter long before proceedings commenced.