in person For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant, a Band 6 Principal Pharmacy Technician engaged on a fixed term contract, brought complaints of automatically unfair dismissal under s.99 ERA 1996 and pregnancy and maternity discrimination under s.18 EqA 2010 following the non-renewal of her fixed term contract on 30 November 2021. A notice pay complaint had earlier been withdrawn and dismissed under Rule 52. The hearing took place over three days before Employment Judge Klimov sitting with Tribunal Members H Bharadia and C Edwards; the parties agreed that liability (including Polkey) would be decided first and remedy, if it arose, at a separate hearing.

The Tribunal found that the reason for ending the claimant's employment was the expiry of her fixed term contract in the context of budgetary pressures and staffing decisions in the Clinical Trials team, and not the claimant's pregnancy, childbirth or maternity. It accepted Ms Mehta's evidence as to the reasons for the decisions taken, including the offer to allow the claimant to spend the remainder of her contract at home on paid leave, which the Tribunal characterised as beneficial rather than unfavourable. The Tribunal noted that ending employment to avoid an employee accruing two years' continuous service is a distinct matter from dismissing because of pregnancy or maternity, and the former is not unlawful.

Each of the alleged acts of unfavourable treatment under s.18 EqA was considered and rejected, either on the basis that the act did not amount to unfavourable treatment or that it was not done for a proscribed reason. The claim of automatic unfair dismissal under s.99 ERA likewise failed. The claimant's entire claim was dismissed. A costs application by the claimant was withdrawn at the conclusion of the hearing and dismissed on withdrawal.