In person For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant was employed from 14 October 2019 and by the end of the employment was working as a chemistry lecturer for 0.7 of her time and a curriculum manager for 0.3. She resigned by letter dated 22 May 2023, notified on 23 May 2023, and her employment ended on 22 August 2023 after notice. Applying s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996, Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp and Malik and Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA, the tribunal held that she had not shown a repudiatory breach of contract or a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. Most of the alleged acts were found unproven, and the tribunal held that the 9 March 2023 fraction error and the April 2023 organogram omission were minor administrative mistakes rather than breaches of contract. It also held that the failure to provide a separate curriculum leader contract was an oversight that was not serious enough to justify resignation, and noted that the issue had been affirmed in any event.

On pregnancy and maternity discrimination, the tribunal held that the allegations before 8 March 2023 were out of time under s.123 Equality Act 2010 and that it would not have been just and equitable to extend time. On the merits, it found the claimant had been informed and consulted about the July 2022 reorganisation, had been told she could return to the same role structure, and had not been treated differently from other curriculum managers. It rejected the allegation of cronyism in relation to Daniella Plummer’s appointment, because the relationship between Ms Quinn and Ms Plummer had been disclosed and the tribunal accepted the interview process was rigorous.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had been allocated Room 101 as a quiet place to rest, but found that any later inability to use it exclusively was because of space pressure and exam use, not because of pregnancy or maternity. It also rejected the allegation that communication during maternity leave was deficient, finding that the respondent had kept the claimant informed and that she had not complained about the level of contact at the time. Under s.18 Equality Act 2010, and applying Johal v Commission for Equality and Human Rights and Indigo Design Build and Management Ltd and another v Martinez, the tribunal concluded that the remaining accepted conduct was not unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy or maternity.

The direct sex discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010 failed. The tribunal found that Catherine Quinn did not make the alleged inappropriate comment 'you want to have it all' in a discriminatory sense, and that any similar wording was used in the context of discussing working mothers and the claimant’s return to work. It found the other alleged comments on 9 March 2023 were either not made, or were simple mistakes promptly corrected. On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the claimant made protected acts on 31 March 2023 and 14 April 2023 under s.27 Equality Act 2010, but held that the alleged detriments were all unfounded under the other heads of claim, so no detriment because of protected acts was shown.