Case 2300023/2017 · Employment Tribunal

Ms P Harwood, HR Consultant For the v Respondent — 2017

Case reference: 2300023/2017
Decision date: 15 November 2017
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hall-Smith
Panel members: Ms H Bharadia, Mr N Shanks

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Ms P Harwood, HR Consultant For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal upheld two pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaints. It found that on 4 April 2016 Vicki Crawte told the Claimant not to tell colleagues about her pregnancy until the managing director had been informed, and the tribunal concluded that this reflected an assumption that the news would be unwelcome. It also found that the 29 June 2016 risk assessment was carried out in front of four male colleagues despite the Claimant's request for privacy, and that there was no adequate justification for doing so.

The remaining discrimination allegations were dismissed. The tribunal found that the 23 June 2016 performance letter was part of a new procedure used for customer service managers and that Paul Ryan received a similar letter; that the 4 July 2016 increase in targets and sales area did not apply to the Claimant until after maternity leave; and that the emails from Mark Tomlinson, the 18 July 2016 letter inviting her to a disciplinary meeting, the absence of return-to-work interviews, the grievance handling, the alleged exclusion from meetings, and the 21 and 22 September 2016 handover emails were not discriminatory or harassing. It found no causal link between those matters and either sex or pregnancy, and it rejected the comparators relied on for the broader sex discrimination complaints.

The protected disclosure complaint failed because the tribunal treated the Regus Centre seating complaint as a complaint about seating rather than a qualifying disclosure in the public interest under s.43B ERA 1996. The victimisation complaint also failed because the tribunal found no detriment caused by the grievance or any other protected act, noting that the grievance and appeal were largely resolved in the Claimant's favour. The reasons also discuss commission on the Wyndeham and Pureprint accounts, including a proposed 50/50 apportionment on Pureprint, but the judgment does not record a final quantified remedy and states that a remedy hearing will be listed.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	The tribunal upheld the 4 April 2016 instruction not to tell colleagues about the pregnancy until the managing director had been informed, and the 29 June 2016 risk assessment carried out in front of four male colleagues. Other pregnancy-related allegations, including letters, targets, meetings, emails, grievance handling and exclusion allegations, were dismissed.	Upheld	Pregnancy and maternity	—
Sex discrimination	The tribunal found no causal link between the remaining direct and indirect sex discrimination allegations and the Claimant's sex, including the 23 June performance letter, the 4 July target and territory changes, the emails from Mark Tomlinson, the investigatory or disciplinary letter, return-to-work meetings, meeting attendance, grievance handling, and the September handover emails. It noted that Scott Russell and Ian Matthews were Business Development Managers, not comparable to the Claimant and Paul Ryan.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Harassment	The tribunal found that the emails and other communications relied on were at most blunt or ordinary management correspondence and did not meet the harassment threshold.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Victimisation	The tribunal found no detriment because of the 26 July 2016 grievance or any other protected act, and said the grievance and appeal were largely resolved in the Claimant's favour.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	The complaint about the Regus Centre seating and workstation lacked a public-interest element under s.43B ERA 1996 and was treated as no more than a complaint about seating.

Legal tests applied

8 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.