Case 2206617/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Poliakovaite v Davita International Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2206617/2022
- Decision date
- 18 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Kenward
- Panel members
- Dr V Weerasinghe, Ms S Aslett
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Poliakovaite
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as Senior Director - International Accounting and was dismissed shortly after telling her manager that she was pregnant. The respondent said the dismissal was based on performance and working relationship concerns and that the decision had already been made before it knew of the pregnancy.
The tribunal was not satisfied that the concerns raised by the claimant's colleagues were influenced by her pregnancy or its effects. It found the claimant had not shown a prima facie case that her dismissal was because of pregnancy or pregnancy-related illness, and accepted the respondent's explanation that the dismissal resulted from the manager's assessment of the best decision for the respondent in light of the concerns raised.
The tribunal dismissed the pregnancy discrimination, direct sex discrimination, and automatically unfair dismissal complaints. It also found that any separate complaint about sums owed was unsupported by evidence or material showing that any sums were due.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was an automatically unfair dismissal complaint under Employment Rights Act 1996 section 99 based on pregnancy or pregnancy-related reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The complaint was brought under Equality Act 2010 section 18 and concerned the claimant's dismissal shortly after she told her manager she was pregnant. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The complaint was brought as direct sex discrimination under Equality Act 2010 section 13. The tribunal also noted that the section 18 complaint precluded pursuing the same complaint as sex discrimination. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The ET1 indicated that other payments were claimed, but the tribunal said they were not identified, the schedule of loss did not seek other payments, and no evidence or material showed any sums were due. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 99
- Equality Act 2010 section 13
- Equality Act 2010 section 18
- Equality Act 2010 section 18(7)
- Employment Rights Act 1996 sections 92 and 93
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.