Mrs M Sabio Almeda v Gratte Brothers Group Limited and 2 others — 2025

Mrs M Sabio Almeda worked for Gratte Brothers Group Limited from July 2015, was promoted in April 2017, and returned from two periods of maternity leave under flexible working arrangements. The tribunal held that many of the earlier incidents relied on by the claimant were outside the primary time limit, and it refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds. It also noted that the case did not include a disability discrimination claim, although mental health and occupational health evidence were relevant to the factual background.

The tribunal found that the claimant's flexible working applications in 2020, 2021 and 2022 were considered through the company's procedures. The January 2022 request for permanent homeworking was refused, and the appeal was rejected, because the company relied on legitimate business grounds: customer demand, quality, performance, the need for collaboration with project and CAD teams, and the need for office or site attendance as the business moved back towards normal working. The tribunal accepted that the company had a PCP requiring office-based work and normal hours, but held that it was proportionate and not discriminatory.

On the discrimination claims, the tribunal rejected the claimant's case that she was treated less favourably because of sex or age. It found that comments relied upon as "too young" were about the permanence of the homeworking request rather than age, and that the comparators identified for the age claim were not apt. On the sex discrimination allegations, the tribunal found that the challenged conduct around promotion announcements, workload, office attendance, appraisal arrangements, CIBSE time, project drinks, and the handling of the claimant's role after maternity leave did not amount to unlawful sex discrimination. The tribunal also rejected the harassment allegations about breastfeeding and expressing milk, monitoring, alleged slander, and the occupational health information, finding either that the conduct was not related to sex or age, or that it was not serious enough to meet the statutory definition.

The tribunal rejected the victimisation claim. It found that the decision to suspend the claimant on 8 July 2022, to investigate the breakdown in the employment relationship, and to keep the suspension in place while mediation and further steps were considered, were not taken because she had raised a grievance or notified ACAS. The suspension was on full pay and was treated as a neutral step taken because the relationship between the claimant and her managers had broken down and the company was trying to identify a way forward. The later request for a mediation consent form did not remove the claimant's right to appeal, and the tribunal did not accept that the grievance or ACAS activity was the reason for the treatment complained of.

The constructive unfair dismissal claim also failed. The tribunal held that there was no repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, either by any individual incident or cumulatively. It found that the company had investigated grievances, referred the claimant for occupational health advice, implemented temporary full-time homeworking while matters were being resolved, and proposed mediation. Those steps were inconsistent with an intention to repudiate the contract. Because the claimant resigned with immediate effect and there was no dismissal, the notice pay claim also failed.