- IN PERSON FOR THE v - Mrs J Jeffery — 2021

The claimant was employed by the respondent hairdressing business under an apprenticeship arrangement from March 2018. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had epilepsy, that the respondent knew of it, and that time off for medical appointments had been permitted without loss of pay. The first set of allegations concerned a June 2019 conversation in which Mrs Jeffrey asked whether, in light of the claimant's condition, "this is the job for you".

On the disability allegations, the tribunal accepted Mrs Jeffrey's evidence that the remark was made in a supportive context after the claimant had reported regular seizures and said work stress might be contributing to them. It found that there was no less favourable treatment for the purposes of s13 Equality Act 2010 because a hypothetical comparator would have been treated in the same way. The tribunal also held that, even if the comment was related to disability, it was not reasonable in context to regard it as having the proscribed effect for harassment under s26 Equality Act 2010. It added that the complaint was out of time and that it would not have been just and equitable to extend time.

The pregnancy-related complaint concerned events after a sickness absence from 6 to 19 February 2020. When the claimant returned on 20 February 2020, her prices had been removed from the window and her clients had been moved to other stylists, and criticisms were made about her work. The tribunal accepted the respondent's explanation that concerns about the quality of the claimant's work had arisen during her absence, after other stylists had dealt with her regular customers, and that the actions were taken because of those concerns rather than because of pregnancy or pregnancy-related illness. It therefore dismissed the s18 Equality Act 2010 claim.

The final claim was for automatic unfair dismissal under s99 Employment Rights Act 1996, considered in a constructive dismissal context because the claimant resigned after the February 2020 events. The tribunal held that, although the facts might have supported a constructive unfair dismissal argument had the claimant had more than two years' service, the question under s99 was whether the reason or principal reason for the dismissal was pregnancy or something connected with pregnancy. Applying its findings on the respondent's reasons for acting, it concluded that the events leading to the resignation were not causally connected to pregnancy and dismissed the dismissal claim.