In person, assisted by her husband Mr. S. Bizzotto For v Respondent — 2024

The claimant worked as a nanny for the respondent from 9 September 2021 until 20 August 2023. She brought claims of automatic unfair dismissal, direct sex discrimination, pregnancy and maternity discrimination, holiday pay and breach of contract. The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was redundancy as the family no longer required a nanny, not that the claimant was on maternity leave, so the automatic unfair dismissal complaint under s.99 ERA 1996 was not well-founded.

The tribunal upheld one element of the pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim under s.18 Equality Act 2010, namely the failure to pay the claimant for time spent at ante-natal appointments. The tribunal found this was more than an isolated incident as it continued over a period and was only remedied after the claimant approached ACAS. All other pregnancy and maternity allegations (failure to respond to emails, failure to pay pregnancy-related sickness, dismissal) and the direct sex discrimination claims were dismissed, as was the holiday pay complaint.

The tribunal also found that the respondent breached the contract by failing to reimburse Ofsted registration costs, the parties having agreed prior to entering the contract that the claimant would register if the respondent covered the costs. The tribunal awarded £191.75 as damages for breach of contract and £3,500 as compensation for injury to feelings at the lower end of the lowest Vento band, applying the bands applicable to claims presented on or after 6 April 2023. No interest was awarded.