Ms L Mankau, counsel For the v Mr L Davis, solicitor — 2021

The tribunal recorded that, after the earlier withdrawal of all other claims, the only issue for determination was whether the claimant’s dismissal on 30 September 2019 was unfavourable treatment because she was exercising or seeking to exercise the right to ordinary or additional maternity leave under section 18(4) Equality Act 2010. The claimant relied on the timing of the dismissal shortly after her return from maternity leave, the fact that she was the only person dismissed at that time, and the absence of oral evidence from Colonel Alharmoodi, who made the redundancy decision.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant was dismissed less than two weeks after returning from maternity leave, but found that this was set against a wider programme of staff reductions over several years. It found that Colonel Alharmoodi had been given instructions to make cuts, that he identified the logistics department as a department from which capacity could be reduced, and that he used the existing appraisal and disciplinary record material in concluding that the claimant was the weakest candidate on paper. It also accepted that the claimant had not been replaced.

Applying the section 136 Equality Act burden of proof approach and the authorities cited in the reasons, the tribunal held that the two facts relied on by the claimant, alone and in context, were not enough to shift the burden. It rejected the suggestion that the lack of consultation or any alleged unreasonable process could itself found an inference of discrimination in this case, and it declined to draw an adverse inference from Colonel Alharmoodi’s non-attendance. In the alternative, the tribunal said that, even if the burden had shifted, the respondent had established that the dismissal was for budget-cutting and performance reasons and that taking maternity leave was, in no sense whatsoever, the reason for dismissal. The claim was therefore dismissed and no remedy was awarded.