Mrs A. Thompson v Scancrown Ltd, trading as Manors London Central Remote Hearing (CVP) — 2020

The claimant was a sales manager who announced her pregnancy in May 2018, took maternity leave from October 2018 to October 2019, and later complained about remarks, workload, a New York team trip, lack of a risk assessment, the handling of her return to work, and the treatment of her pay and referral fees. The tribunal accepted that some conduct occurred, but on the evidence it found the main explanations were timekeeping concerns, oversight, or ordinary business considerations rather than pregnancy or maternity. It also found that the failure to carry out pregnancy risk assessments was a breach of health and safety duties for all staff, but not discriminatory on the facts found.

The pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim and the harassment claim both failed. The tribunal rejected the alleged June remark, alleged undermining of the claimant's role, the New York trip complaints, the office monitoring allegation, the final-week criticism, the departure with keys and phone, the LonRes issue, and the 25 October conversation as discriminatory conduct. It also held that the grievance handling was not best practice but was 'good enough'; the 9 December holiday-pay response was legalistic and had an intimidating effect, but the tribunal found it was not related to sex or maternity leave.

The indirect sex discrimination claim succeeded. The tribunal found that the requirement for the sales manager to work full-time and until 6 p.m. placed women with childcare responsibilities at a particular disadvantage and disadvantaged the claimant, whose nursery closed at 6 p.m. It accepted that the respondent's aim was the success of the business and that customer continuity, costs, reorganisation, and staffing levels were relevant, but held that refusing the requested four-day pattern and earlier finish was not a proportionate means of achieving that aim. Remedy for that claim was left to a later hearing.

The unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found no constructive dismissal: the claimant resigned after the grievance outcome and the holiday-pay correspondence, but the real reason was that she did not want or was not able to return on her contracted hours. The tribunal also dismissed the referral-fee deduction claim, finding that the claimant had not proved the £2,000 Portman Square fee or the £1,000 Orchard Court fee were then properly payable.