Miss T Legg v Miss H Burridge and 1 other — 2020

Miss T Legg brought claims against Miss Heather Burridge for unfair dismissal under section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and pregnancy discrimination under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010. Care Direct was removed from the proceedings by consent. The tribunal proceeded on the basis that Miss Burridge was Miss Legg's employer, although it noted that the evidence on the employment relationship was incomplete.

The tribunal found that the important events took place between 17 February and 31 March 2019. Miss Legg was absent from work for part of that period, and on 8 March 2019 she told Miss Burridge that she was pregnant. The tribunal preferred an account in which a meeting was then held on 11 March 2019 to redistribute Miss Burridge's care arrangements because she had been struggling to cover the gap in care during Miss Legg's absence. It found that Miss Legg was asked to vary her hours, did not continue in the role after that point, and effectively resigned.

On that basis the unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found there was no dismissal. If there had been a dismissal, the tribunal found the reason was Miss Burridge's need to secure her care package and not Miss Legg's pregnancy. The tribunal also rejected the pregnancy discrimination claim. Although Miss Legg was within the protected period, the tribunal found she had not shown facts from which pregnancy discrimination could be inferred in relation to dismissal, less favourable terms, or any other detriment. It accepted that the idea of involving outside agencies to secure care had already arisen before Miss Burridge knew of the pregnancy.

Miss Legg's wrongful dismissal claim for notice pay was withdrawn during the hearing, so no remedy was awarded. The judgment therefore records dismissal of the unfair dismissal and pregnancy discrimination claims, and withdrawal of the contractual notice-pay claim.