Ms C Ganiza v American Institute for Foreign Study UK Limited — 2025

The claimant started work as accommodation manager on 2 May 2023 on a six-month probationary period. The tribunal heard evidence that there were early concerns about punctuality, responsiveness, planning spreadsheets and use of the shared drive, and that by September 2023 colleagues were raising performance concerns. The claimant told Ms Smith on 6 September 2023 that she was pregnant with twins, and later lost one twin on 29 September 2023; the tribunal preferred Ms Smith’s account of the earlier conversation and found no evidence that she had told the claimant to conceal the pregnancy because of any anticipated treatment by management.

On the pregnancy and maternity complaints, the tribunal accepted that some of the respondent’s handling was unreasonable or unfavourable, including Ms Garnham’s insistence on a MATB1 form before arranging a risk assessment, the delay in contacting the claimant after the midwife confirmed the pregnancy, and the invitation to a capability review when the claimant had asked about maternity leave or home working. It nevertheless found that these steps were not taken because of pregnancy or maternity. The tribunal held that Ms Dicks and Ms Smith genuinely wanted the claimant to succeed, that the performance concerns pre-dated knowledge of the pregnancy, and that Ms Garnham’s approach was explained by her rigid maternity process, workload and limited HR resource.

The tribunal also rejected the automatic unfair dismissal complaint. It found that the claimant had not been constructively dismissed and therefore there was no dismissal for a maternity-related reason under regulation 3 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999. The same overall reasoning defeated the pregnancy/maternity discrimination complaints, including the claims arising from the probation meeting, the extension of probation, the 26 October 2023 email about office attendance, the training and capability process, and the lack of a timely risk assessment.

The race discrimination and race harassment complaints were also dismissed. The tribunal found no facts from which it could conclude that the claimant was treated less favourably because she was mixed race in relation to the Tufnell House, Hayloft House or Vega House incidents, and it accepted the respondent’s evidence that the Vega House complaints were pursued because it wanted to set standards at the start of a new long-term relationship. On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that ACAS early conciliation was a protected act and that delay in paying SMP was capable of being a detriment, but held that the delay was caused by settlement discussions and the return of equipment and keys, not by the protected act. All claims were dismissed and no award was made.