Ms L Harris - counsel For the v Mr P Jewell - consultant — 2019

The tribunal found that all three respondents discriminated against both claimants on grounds of pregnancy or maternity, and that the first respondent also unfairly dismissed the second claimant, constructively unfairly dismissed the first claimant, automatically unfairly dismissed both claimants, failed to comply with TUPE s.13 consultation and information duties in respect of both claimants, and owed the second claimant four days' holiday pay. On remedy, it refused the respondents' application for an adjournment or exclusion of the second claimant's late supplementary remedy statement because no real prejudice was shown.

On loss, the tribunal accepted the First Claimant's evidence on mitigation because it was not challenged in cross-examination. It found that she started maternity leave on 9 September 2017 and obtained new part-time employment on 1 June 2018 at a gross monthly salary of £552.50, and it allowed her claimed loss of earnings to the hearing together with six months' future loss. For the Second Claimant, the tribunal accepted that she had made reasonable efforts to find work through online agencies and applications, rejected the suggestion that she should have been 'banging on doors', and concluded that future loss should continue for a year but with mitigation expected after three months.

For injury to feelings, the tribunal applied the Vento guidelines and placed both cases in the middle band. It awarded the First Claimant £20,000 and the Second Claimant £25,200 for injury to feelings, added £5,000 aggravated damages to each, and awarded interest. It also applied a 25% s.207A uplift to the unfair dismissal and injury to feelings awards, finding that the discriminatory and disciplinary conduct were closely linked.

The tribunal found that the Second Respondent became unhappy when he learned of the Second Claimant's pregnancy on 6 October 2017 and that the claimants' departure was engineered through a course of conduct rather than a one-off event. It said the First Claimant's discriminatory treatment ran over about two months and included non-payment of SMP, the events at Offer Limited, a TUPE transfer, an ignored grievance and pressure to resign, while the Second Claimant was subjected to a spurious disciplinary process and comments after giving birth prematurely. The final sums payable were £62,890.65 to the First Claimant and £87,696.43 to the Second Claimant, jointly and severally liable against all three respondents.