In person For the v Respondent — 2018

Ms J Guray worked as a customer experience adviser at the respondent's South Kensington betting shop. The tribunal found that by August 2018 she had told Mr Privitera that she was pregnant, shown him an antenatal appointment letter and an ultrasound report, and that he did not complete a formal pregnancy risk assessment at that stage. It also found that she generally had a cashier until about 7 pm and could contact managers for cover, and that she did not raise contemporaneous complaints about toilet breaks or food breaks.

The claimant was dismissed after an investigation into stake reductions on 1 and 8 October 2018. On 8 October she admitted reducing six losing bets hours after they had been taken, the combined reductions were £417, and the tribunal accepted Mr Lennox's view that it was not credible that she had simply mis-struck the bets at that point. On 1 October two £40 losing stakes were reduced to £20 while Angel Rasavi-Nematollahi was present; the tribunal found Angel's circumstances materially different because the claimant was the duty manager responsible for the till and for supervising Angel.

The tribunal held that the dismissal was for gross misconduct and rejected the case that pregnancy or intended maternity leave was the reason. It also rejected the complaint about pregnancy risk assessments, finding no evidence of a risk of harm from the work that would trigger a generic assessment and no evidence that the claimant's asserted difficulties with breaks, toilet access, food breaks, chair, violence, or long hours created a relevant risk requiring an individual assessment. All claims were dismissed and no award was made.