Case 1401369/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Kelly Bosch v FAC Property Consultants Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1401369/2018
- Decision date
- 26 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell
- Venue
- Bodmin
- Panel members
- Mr M T Smaldon, Ms R A Clarke
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Kelly Bosch
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Bosch joined FAC Property Consultants Ltd in March 2017 to help turn around the Bodmin office. After she announced her pregnancy on 2 October 2017, the tribunal accepted that Mr Rees suggested she step back from some management responsibilities, and that the respondent soon thereafter pressed her to accept a lower-paid role, threatened redundancy, and later moved her to Bodmin with reduced support. It found that the comments and treatment at the meetings on 27 October and 8 November 2017, together with the capability process sent on 15 December 2017, were part of a course of conduct aimed at her because she was pregnant.
The tribunal held that the pregnancy and maternity complaint was upheld in its essentials. It concluded that the capability proceedings were not a genuine capability process in the circumstances found, but were brought because the respondent had decided to dismiss her when she was due to go on maternity leave. It also found that she was entitled to resign in response to the breaches of trust and confidence, so her loss was not cut off by the resignation.
On religion and belief, the tribunal accepted that the email sent on the evening of Friday 27 October 2017, directing her to go to Par to collect her computer, was sent inadvertently during her sabbath and did not amount to direct discrimination. However, it found that the remarks made at that same meeting about her beliefs, including references to Easter and Christmas as pagan festivals, amounted to harassment. It made no separate award for the harassment claim because it considered that the injury to feelings could not be separated from the impact of the pregnancy discrimination.
For remedy, the tribunal awarded financial loss of £1,630 for sickness absence in December 2017 and January 2018, £2,760 for the maternity leave period before resignation, and £10,500 for continuing loss after she obtained part-time work, making £14,890 in financial loss. It awarded £20,000 for injury to feelings, interest of £1,302 on financial loss and £3,542 on non-financial loss, and a gross-up award of £1,331, producing a total award of £41,065. The tribunal said the injury to feelings was in the middle band and that the harassment point was already reflected within the overall assessment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal found that pressure to step back from her management role, repeated suggestions of a pay cut or demotion, threats of redundancy, the move to Bodmin, the capability process and the later treatment were because of her pregnancy. It also held that she was entitled to resign in response to the breaches, but no separate per-claim monetary figure was identified. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Harassment | The harassment finding was based on comments made at the 27 October 2017 meeting about her Seventh Day Adventist beliefs, including references to Easter and Christmas as pagan festivals and her views as fables. The tribunal treated this as unwanted conduct related to religion and belief; no separate award was made because the injury to feelings could not be disentangled from the pregnancy discrimination award. | Upheld | Religion or belief | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal rejected the direct discrimination claim because the email sent at 8:24 pm on Friday 27 October 2017 was found to have been inadvertent, and the religious comments were more properly analysed as harassment rather than less favourable treatment because of religion or belief. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £41,065
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £14,890
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.18 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Vento middle band
- Scicluna v Zippy Stitch
- Parekh v London Borough of Brent
- Da'Bell v NSPCC
- Lipton Group Limited v Cudd
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.