Ms A Williams v The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea — 2025

The claimant was employed as a Housing Solutions Officer from December 2020. She became pregnant in around June 2021, suffered hyperemesis gravidarum and tachycardia, and initially worked from home. After the respondent introduced a 50/50 office-working policy in July 2021, the tribunal found that Mr Manton asked her to return to the office in late September and early October 2021, but it held that this was not because of pregnancy or pregnancy-related illness. The tribunal accepted that these early requests were unfavourable treatment, but concluded they were driven by enforcement of the office-working policy and Mr Manton’s inexperience rather than any discriminatory reason. It rejected the alternative section 47C ERA complaints on the same facts for the same reason.

The tribunal also rejected the allegation that the respondent failed to complete a pregnancy risk assessment. It found that Mr Manton had already tried to arrange occupational health and HR involvement by October 2021, and that the claimant did not engage with the blank occupational health form he sent her. Although a formal risk assessment was not completed until the Covid risk assessment on 2 February 2022, the tribunal found no unfavourable treatment or detriment in that delay and no pregnancy-related causation. The alternative section 47C complaint on that issue also failed.

After maternity leave, the claimant made a flexible working request in March 2023 to reduce her hours and work entirely from home. The tribunal found that the respondent allowed her to reduce to three days per week for three months, but did not agree to 100% home working because the team was front-facing and the service needed office attendance. It held that this decision was not unfavourable treatment or a detriment and was not because she had taken maternity leave. The tribunal also held that her dismissal in September 2023 was for conduct relating to the use and security of her work phone and related international calls, not pregnancy, childbirth or maternity leave.

On dismissal, the tribunal found the respondent had carried out a reasonable investigation, had a reasonable belief in misconduct, and had followed a fair procedure. It applied the Burchell approach and s.98(4) ERA 1996, and concluded that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the claimant had in fact been paid one month’s notice pay in full; the final salary deduction was for recovery of an overpayment after she moved to part-time hours. All complaints were dismissed and no monetary award was made.