Ms B Patel, Husband/Representative For the v Mr S Bellm, Solicitor — 2019

The tribunal found that the Claimant, Ms J Patel, had been employed as Head of Operations and Finance and later took maternity leave. It accepted that Mr Ricky Moore first covered part of her role, then became the Respondent's LoveShop General Manager. The tribunal rejected the case that the Claimant's own role had been replaced by Mr Moore's role, finding that LoveShop General Manager was a materially different product and commercial development position from the Claimant's HR, legal, finance and operations role.

On the maternity discrimination claim, the tribunal found that the Respondent did not reduce the Claimant's role because of pregnancy or maternity, did not seek to avoid maternity protections, and did not act unlawfully in carrying out the later redundancy process. It did find that the Claimant was not told about the LoveShop General Manager role in late 2017 while she was on maternity leave, and that this was unfavourable treatment partly because she was on maternity leave. However, it held that that complaint was out of time, and it refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis.

On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the Claimant had done a protected act by raising a grievance, but it rejected each alleged detriment. It found that being asked not to come into the office on 12 September 2018 was not a detriment in the circumstances, that the dismissal and grievance process flowed from a genuine redundancy situation rather than from the grievance, and that the late payment of notice pay was not motivated by the protected act because the sums had been ring-fenced. The tribunal also found that the grievance and appeal process was fair in the context of a small business and did not amount to victimisation.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the principal reason for dismissal was redundancy. It found that the Respondent's app had failed, funding was exhausted, and the business had to scale back to roles it considered critical to survival. The tribunal accepted that the Claimant's role was not one of those critical roles, that consultation was reasonable, that the Respondent considered alternatives, and that it was reasonable not to displace Mr Moore or reduce his hours. The unfair dismissal claim therefore failed.