Claimant v Marks and Spencer PLC

Tribunal found the claimant had not discharged the initial burden of proof under s136 EqA. The tribunal accepted the respondent's non-discriminatory explanations for all alleged acts. In particular, changes to the claimant's role were due to business reorganisation and appointment of a new Head of Nutrition, not her protected characteristics.

Tribunal found that decisions regarding the claimant's role changes, redundancy pooling, and selection were not materially influenced by her pregnancy or maternity leave. The tribunal found no evidence that protected characteristics operated on decision-makers' minds either consciously or unconsciously.

Claims under s18 EqA regarding unfavourable treatment because of maternity leave failed because the tribunal found the treatment was not 'because of' the protected period. The restructuring and redundancy were due to genuine business reasons unconnected to the claimant's maternity leave.

Tribunal found no PCPs were established. The claimed practices (failing to consider part-time workers for senior positions, making changes without consulting those on leave, marking down part-time workers in redundancy) were not proven to exist. Even if the redundancy selection criteria were a PCP, the claimant failed to show it placed women at particular disadvantage.

The protected act was appealing the redundancy alleging discrimination. The alleged detriment was rejection of her appeal. Tribunal accepted that Ms Langton dismissed the appeal on its merits and not because the claimant had done a protected act. Ms Langton acted honestly and professionally.

Claims under s47C ERA regarding detriment for pregnancy/maternity reasons failed for the same reasons as the discrimination claims. The tribunal found all alleged detriments were not done for a proscribed reason but for legitimate business reasons.

Tribunal found the reason for dismissal was that the claimant scored lowest in a genuine redundancy situation for non-discriminatory reasons. The reason was not her pregnancy, maternity or maternity leave. The respondent made a reasonable business decision to dismiss one Senior Nutritionist by way of redundancy.

Tribunal found a genuine redundancy situation existed. The pooling, selection criteria and scoring were fair and reasonable. The respondent consulted fully, asked about alternative roles, and provided a reasonable appeal. The procedure and decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses. The claimant was fairly dismissed.