Mrs R. M. Parekh v Respondent — 2025

The claimant was recruited in May 2023 as an architectural technician on £21,000 per year. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had genuine concerns about the standard of her work from September 2023 onwards and that she needed to improve, but it also found that the respondent’s response changed after she informed Stuart Ellerby on 12 November 2023 that she was pregnant.

Before that disclosure, the claimant had been told in the 27 October 2023 meeting and the 7 November email that her work needed improvement and that a further review would be held at the end of February or early March 2024. After the pregnancy announcement, the tribunal found that the timetable was brought forward: she was called to an informal meeting on 23/24 November, told to show active improvement before her leave, and then dismissed on 12 January 2024 without being given a proper opportunity to discuss the performance concerns. The tribunal held that there was no adequate explanation for the shortening of the review period and that the dismissal decision was materially contributed to by pregnancy; pregnancy was also the principal reason for dismissal.

The tribunal therefore upheld both the section 18 Equality Act 2010 discrimination claim and the section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996 automatic unfair dismissal claim. It accepted that there had been performance shortcomings, but found that the evidence relied on to show non-improvement largely pre-dated the warning that improvement was required, and that the claimant had not been given the review process initially promised. In remedy, the tribunal awarded £10,000 for injury to feelings, financial loss calculated to 31 March 2024 at £3,075.50, and interest of £1,107.98. It made no basic award because the claimant had not completed one year’s employment, and it did not reduce compensation for contribution.