Claimant v Caleňo Drinks Limited

The tribunal found the performance criticisms during probationary reviews in March 2023 were constructive, balanced with praise, and aimed at helping the claimant pass probation. They would have been given to any employee in similar circumstances. The claimant did not raise concerns about her pregnancy affecting her performance at the time, instead wishing not to be seen as a 'hindrance'. There was no evidence the feedback was because of her pregnancy.

The tribunal found no evidence that the failure to conduct a second pregnancy risk assessment was a deliberate omission or detriment. The claimant never requested one or complained about the omission at the time, and never again referred to the first assessment after signing it. Ms Churchill's evidence was that the claimant did not provide detail about the severity of her perinatal depression diagnosis. The tribunal considered this an 'after the event' complaint.

The tribunal found the dismissal was not because of pregnancy. The financial reasons for redundancy would have applied regardless of pregnancy. Significantly, the claimant did not consider pregnancy to be the reason for dismissal at the time and only raised this possibility months later after taking legal advice. Her performance, whether affected by pregnancy or not, was not a factor in the redundancy decision.