Claimant v Lancashire County Council
Outcome
Individual claims
All pregnancy discrimination complaints (refusing remote meeting request, threatening denial of leave, calling claimant 'passive aggressive', accusing her of victimhood, raising mental health concerns, informing her colleagues disliked working with her) were presented out of time. Last act was 20 July 2020, claim filed 16 July 2022. Tribunal found no just and equitable reason to extend time as claimant remained at work and had union representation. On merits, tribunal would have found none well-founded as treatment related to claimant's conduct and performance concerns, not pregnancy.
Complaint that managers collected information about claimant's availability on shift including breast feeding breaks (December 2021-March 2022) failed. Tribunal found managers did not solicit complaints but responded to concerns raised by colleagues about claimant being uncontactable for extended periods (including 4 hours on one occasion). Tribunal found this was not because of sex but because of legitimate concern about availability when on shift, regardless of reason for unavailability.
Complaint about being called 'passive aggressive' at 14 July 2020 disciplinary hearing was out of time and not part of continuing conduct. Tribunal refused just and equitable extension. On merits would have failed as no evidence comment was related to sex — it related to claimant's behaviour at the hearing (turning away from camera, eating crisps during witness evidence).
Tribunal found claimant and comparator Mr Norris engaged in like work — work was broadly similar with no differences of practical importance established by respondent. However, respondent successfully proved material factor defence: difference in pay arose because Mr Norris was appointed at Grade 9 and claimant at Grade 8. Mr Norris had more post-qualification experience (4 years vs 2 years), met minimum requirements for Grade 9, and had unusual dual experience in both adult and child social care. Material factor not tainted by direct or indirect sex discrimination.
Facts
Claimant was a Grade 8 social worker in Emergency Duty Team, appointed March 2017. Comparator Mr Norris appointed August 2017 initially at same pay point but on Grade 9, leading to pay differential through increments. Claimant raised equal pay grievance in 2019. During pregnancy in July 2020, claimant received final written warning for dishonesty in disciplinary hearing. Following return from maternity leave in 2021, concerns arose about claimant's availability on shift including during breastfeeding breaks, leading to fact-finding meeting in March 2022 and subsequent disciplinary investigation resulting in dismissal.
Decision
Tribunal dismissed all claims. Pregnancy discrimination complaints were out of time with no just and equitable extension granted. Equal pay claim failed on material factor defence — pay difference due to different grades on appointment, justified by Mr Norris's greater experience and dual adult/child social care background. Direct sex discrimination and harassment claims failed as treatment related to legitimate performance and conduct concerns, not sex or pregnancy.
Practical note
A material factor defence to equal pay will succeed where a genuine difference in qualifications and experience at appointment justifies different grading, even where day-to-day work is similar, provided the factor is not tainted by sex discrimination.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2405623/2022
- Decision date
- 19 June 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Lancashire County Council
- Sector
- local government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Social Worker in Emergency Duty Team
- Salary band
- £30,000–£40,000
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No