Ruth Kennedy, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant worked for Coram International from 7 to 24 October 2019. After she told her line manager on 15 October 2019 that she and her husband were trying to start a family and that travel to countries with malaria or Zika virus would be difficult, the matter was escalated to HR and senior management. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had not asked for confidentiality, and found that Ms Raoof's escalation of the issue was appropriate. It also found that the decision to move the claimant from the Kazakhstan project to a Nigeria project was made for operational reasons, because Professor Hamilton needed legal support on Nigeria work, and not because of the claimant's sex.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's complaint that the respondent failed to tell her the consequences of refusing travel before dismissal, finding that she had a sufficiently clear understanding that refusal would be treated seriously. It also rejected the allegation that the claimant was dismissed immediately because the respondent wanted to reduce the chance of pregnancy while she remained employed. On 22 October 2019 Professor Hamilton dismissed her with a week's notice pay in lieu, having concluded that travel was a core part of the role and that the claimant was not a good fit because she was not prepared to meet the travel requirements. The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was the respondent's immediate and medium-term need for someone who could travel, and that it would have taken the same decision if the claimant had been a man.

The tribunal also rejected the complaint based on Professor Hamilton's remark that the claimant should go away, have children, and return to this type of work afterwards. It accepted Professor Hamilton's explanation that she was trying to reassure an upset employee, and did not find that the comment was made because of stereotypical assumptions about women. For indirect sex discrimination, the tribunal found that Coram International operated a PCP requiring researchers to undertake international travel where and when requested with minimal discussion. It accepted that this put women trying to conceive at a particular disadvantage compared with men, and that the claimant would have suffered that disadvantage if she had remained employed. However, the PCP was held to be objectively justified because Coram International had a genuine need for staff who could travel to commissioned projects, and there was limited flexibility in project locations and timing. Both claims were dismissed and no award was made.