Claimant v Hiflow Property Services
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and given a written warning primarily because of absences due to pregnancy-related morning sickness. This was overt pregnancy discrimination under s18 Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal found that the reduction of the claimant's working hours from 39.5 to 29 hours per week was an inextricable part of the discriminatory disciplinary process and would not have occurred but for the pregnancy discrimination.
The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed because she was pregnant. The dismissal occurred only six weeks after she announced her pregnancy, followed immediately after discriminatory disciplinary action, and the respondent failed to provide any credible non-discriminatory explanation for the dismissal.
The tribunal found it unnecessary to determine the unfair dismissal claim under s99 ERA 1996 because the discrimination claims succeeded and covered the same ground with broader remedies including injury to feelings.
Facts
The claimant worked as an administrator for a heating and plumbing company for about seven months. She informed her employer she was pregnant on 31 July 2023. Within six weeks, she was subjected to a disciplinary process primarily focused on absences due to morning sickness, given a written warning, had her hours reduced, and was then dismissed at an impromptu meeting on 15 September 2023. The respondent failed to produce key documentary evidence and gave confused and contradictory reasons for the dismissal.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was unlawfully discriminated against under s18 Equality Act 2010 because of pregnancy and pregnancy-related illness. The disciplinary action was primarily motivated by pregnancy-related absences, which was overt discrimination. The dismissal six weeks after announcing pregnancy, following discriminatory disciplinary action, with no credible alternative explanation, led the tribunal to infer pregnancy was an effective cause. The tribunal awarded £22,150.33 including compensation for loss of earnings, injury to feelings, interest, and a 15% ACAS uplift.
Practical note
Employers must never discipline or dismiss employees for pregnancy-related absences, and tribunals will draw adverse inferences from failure to produce relevant documentary evidence and from confused, contradictory explanations for dismissal occurring shortly after pregnancy disclosure.
Award breakdown
Vento band: lower
Adjustments
Respondent wholly failed to comply with ACAS Code when dismissing the claimant. The dismissal meeting was not described as disciplinary, claimant was not informed it might lead to dismissal, and there was no attempt to follow proper procedure despite the respondent having done so in the earlier disciplinary process. This failure was unreasonable and warranted a 15% uplift totalling £2889.17.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000464/2023
- Decision date
- 4 March 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Role
- Administrator
- Service
- 7 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No