In person v Respondent — 2022

Ms H Moxon, a mental health social worker at the London Borough of Islington, brought complaints of disability discrimination by association, pregnancy and maternity discrimination, alternative sex discrimination, and victimisation. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, Mr Y Zavery and Mr Durand Darougar, and referred to the Equality Act burden of proof approach in section 136, Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi and Hewage v Grampian Health Board, as well as the time-limit provisions in section 123.

On the pre-pregnancy issues, the tribunal found that Mr Zavery's handling of the May 2020 homeworking issue was not influenced by Ms Moxon's association with her disabled daughter or by sex. It also found that he did not deny her AMHP training, and that the short return-to-work meeting on 27 May 2020, and the lack of a written record of it, were explained by the pressures on the service during the pandemic. The tribunal could not make firm findings about the earlier maternity-leave contact issue, and in any event held that it was out of time and not saved by a just and equitable extension.

On the later allegations, the tribunal rejected most of the complaints as misunderstandings, mistakes, oversight or legitimate concern about Ms Moxon's working arrangements and sickness absence. It found no discrimination in the ICT and working-from-home emails, the supervision issue, the occupational health equipment issue, the copying of Ms Ferreira into an email about Ms Moxon's medical condition, the overpayment-related text, the maternity risk assessment issue, the requests for medical documentation, or the grievance-related contact and post-grievance matters. The victimisation allegations failed for the same reasons, including because the tribunal found no detriment or no causal connection with the grievance.

By majority, however, the tribunal held that on 14 July 2020 Mr Zavery unfavourably treated Ms Moxon because of pregnancy by raising the question of whether she was entitled to further maternity leave after conceiving during maternity leave and by copying her into the email to HR. That complaint was time-barred on its face, but the tribunal exercised its discretion to hear it as just and equitable. It was the only successful complaint, liability was joint and several against both respondents, and remedy was deferred to a further hearing.