Cases2405623/2022

Claimant v Lancashire County Council

19 June 2024Before Employment Judge SlaterManchesterin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(pregnancy)struck out

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.

Direct Discrimination(sex)failed

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.

Harassment(sex)struck out

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).

Equal Pay(sex)failed

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

Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal [2009] ICR 724Igen v Wong [2005]Wiener GebietskrankenkasseMadarassy v Nomura International Plc [2007] ICR 867

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.26Equality Act 2010 s.65Equality Act 2010 s.64Equality Act 2010 s.69Equality Act 2010 s.123Equality Act 2010 s.13Equality Act 2010 s.18

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