Rita Nancy Martins Nunn v HES Estate Management Limited — 2025

Rita Nancy Martins Nunn was employed by HES Estate Management Limited as a Senior Property Manager from 11 August 2022. The tribunal found that on 21 February 2023 Mr Derriman compared her portfolio with that previously managed by Elizabeth Harvey, the 21-year-old daughter of a director, and that on 18 July 2023 he repeated a similar comparison in an email. The tribunal accepted that these comments were critical of the claimant’s performance, but found that the reference to age was peripheral and descriptive of Ms Harvey’s inexperience, rather than treatment because of age. The age discrimination claim was therefore dismissed.

On the age harassment claim, the tribunal found the claimant was upset by the comments and that they were unwanted and related to age, but it concluded that they were made in the context of the directors’ frustration about the claimant’s perceived output and workload. It held that the comments were not intended to violate dignity, were not sufficiently serious, and did not create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The claim for harassment related to age was dismissed.

On pregnancy, the tribunal found that the respondent knew by 28 February 2023 that the claimant was undergoing IVF and knew of the pregnancy from 1 June 2023. It rejected the allegation that Mr Derriman asked on 2 June 2023 how she got pregnant. It found that the investigation initiated on 19 July 2023, the 23 August 2023 letter of concern, the request for her planned return-to-work date, and the absence of a work-anniversary WhatsApp message were not unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy. The tribunal held that the anniversary messages had already been stopped for all staff, that the return-date request was to update attendance software, and that the investigation and letter of concern were driven by concerns about working from Portugal without approval, offensive language in the office, and perceived over-reliance on colleagues.

The tribunal also found that the claimant had not proved pregnancy-related illness for the purposes of section 18(2)(b). It accepted that IVF treatment and pregnancy likely increased her stress susceptibility, but found no evidence that she had established a pregnancy-related illness distinct from her wider stressors. The pregnancy discrimination claim and the pregnancy-related harassment claim were dismissed. Remedy was agreed to be dealt with in the second related claim, so no award was made in this judgment.