In person For the v Mr Doherty — 2020

The claimant brought pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaints arising from her return to work after a TUPE transfer, together with unpaid-payments claims. The judgment records that one unpaid-payments claim was withdrawn because the sum claimed had been paid, and that the remaining unpaid-payments claims, including unpaid holiday pay, were struck out at a preliminary hearing as out of time. The tribunal then determined the section 18 Equality Act 2010 claims. The panel consisted of Employment Judge E Burns with Ms O Stennett and Ms S Plummer.

The tribunal found that the respondent had put in place a number of pregnancy-related adjustments: a phased return with reduced hours, a pregnancy risk assessment, occupational health input, a DSE assessment, reduced workload, no lone working, and attempts to identify suitable closed office space. It accepted that there were difficulties over use of Unit 6, antenatal appointments, pay, and the handling of concerns raised by the claimant, but it examined each allegation separately and then cumulatively. It found that the claimant’s relationship with her line manager had been strained before the pregnancy, and that this was relevant to how she perceived some of the exchanges.

The allegation that Ms Daybicharran belittled the claimant on 22 or 29 June 2018 was not upheld. The tribunal preferred the claimant’s recollection that a comment was made, but concluded that any upset was linked to the strained relationship and not to pregnancy. The allegation that Ms Daybicharran forced the claimant to work longer hours was also not upheld; the tribunal found that the tasks requested were short, that the claimant was not forced to stay on, and that there was no evidence of pressure to work beyond her agreed hours. The complaint about access to a rest room failed because the tribunal found the respondent had tried to provide access to Unit 6 and Mr Campbell’s office, but could not dedicate a room to the claimant given the shared use needs of other staff.

The tribunal found that the respondent asked the claimant on seven occasions whether her antenatal appointments could be moved to non-working time, but did not pressure her to change them. It found the two telephone calls with Ms Davies to be unfavourable because Ms Davies was too businesslike and did not show the empathy the claimant expected, but held that this was not because of pregnancy. The discussion about performance on 20 August 2018 was found to have been appropriate in principle, though the way it was handled was clumsy and caused unnecessary distress; it was not pregnancy-related. The respondent’s refusal to authorise the claimant to delay maternity leave and use annual leave was held to be dictated by regulation 6(1)(b) of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999, not by pregnancy discrimination. The grievance complaint about lack of support was also rejected, with the tribunal finding the delay over holiday entitlement was a genuine administrative error.