Miss AMY HALLETT v Sp Planning Limited — 2023

The claimant worked for SP Planning Limited as a graduate planner from 3 May 2021 to 30 May 2022. The tribunal accepted that she had epilepsy and that the respondent knew of that from the start of her employment. She told the respondent on 2 November 2021 that she was pregnant, and later agreed reduced hours and mostly home working. The case then concerned a series of disputed issues about feedback, office attendance, RTPI membership support, sick pay, computer access, a disciplinary investigation and dismissal.

On the dismissal issues, the tribunal found that the claimant had breached her contract by submitting planning applications after she started work for the respondent and by being a director and shareholder in Poulsom, a business offering planning services and competing with the respondent to some extent. It did not accept that the plagiarism allegation was proved, but held that the respondent dismissed her because it believed she had committed gross misconduct. Automatic unfair dismissal under MAPLE reg 20 therefore failed, and the wrongful dismissal claim also failed because the tribunal found the respondent was entitled to dismiss without notice on the breaches it had found.

On pregnancy and maternity discrimination, the tribunal rejected the claimant's case that the respondent stopped providing feedback, reduced her responsibilities, or failed to support her in becoming a member of the RTPI. It accepted that some treatment was unfavourable, including locking her out of her computer, not inviting her to a March 2022 social event, delays in providing payslips, starting a disciplinary investigation, accusing her of gross misconduct, adding a plagiarism allegation without prior notice, reconvening the disciplinary meeting without inviting her, and dismissing her. It found those acts were not because of pregnancy or illness resulting from pregnancy. The tribunal extended time for the Equality Act complaint about RTPI support, but dismissed that complaint on the facts.

The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the tribunal did not find that the disciplinary procedure, its timescales, or the respondent's practice of sending emails in the evening and at weekends placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage compared with someone who did not have epilepsy. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled and that the respondent knew that, but held that the relevant PCPs did not trigger the duty to make adjustments. The victimisation claim also failed: although the claimant had made a protected act by saying on 23 February 2022 that she felt discriminated against, the tribunal found that the later detriments were not because of that protected act. No monetary award was made.