Mr I Ahmed, counsel For the v Mr G Paul, solicitor — 2021

Ms Tajtlova began work for Sumitomo Corporation Europe Limited on 20 April 2015 as an assistant manager in human resources and passed probation in October 2015. Her April 2016 appraisal contained criticism in general terms, but also positive comments, and no performance improvement plan was put in place. She became pregnant in early April 2016. The tribunal found that, after a short period of discussion between Ms Debbie Franklin and Mr Jon Margree, a meeting was arranged by letter dated 31 May 2016 and the claimant was then absent through illness and pregnancy-related symptoms; she told the respondent on 3 June 2016 that she was pregnant, and the dismissal letter was sent on 30 June 2016 after legal advice had been taken.

On the section 18 Equality Act 2010 claim, the tribunal accepted the respondent's concession that the burden of proof had shifted under section 136. It found that the respondent's written and oral evidence was incomplete and misleading, particularly because it failed to mention Mr Sato's role, and that relevant documents were not disclosed even though privilege had been waived. The tribunal rejected the respondent's case that the dismissal was solely the result of poor performance, describing the evidence of underperformance as limited and the criticism as exaggerated or disproportionate in parts. It concluded that the dismissal was an act of direct discrimination because the respondent had not shown that pregnancy or maternity played no part in the decision.

On the section 99 ERA 1996 claim, the tribunal applied regulation 20 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 and considered the approach in Kuzel v Roche Products. It held that the claim did not depend on identifying pregnancy as the only reason for dismissal, but on whether the principal reason was connected with pregnancy. The tribunal found that Mr Sato's instruction was the real impetus for the dismissal, that Ms Franklin and Mr Margree rationalised that instruction by reference to performance, and that the tribunal could draw an inference that the dismissal was connected with pregnancy. The judgment records liability only and contains no separate remedy award.