Case 2302103/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L. Grant v Dreamz Hair and Beauty Limited and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 2302103/2018
- Decision date
- 15 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sage Members
- Panel members
- Ms. S. V. MacDonald, Ms. S. J. Murray
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss L. Grant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss L. Grant worked as a nail technician for Dreamz Hair and Beauty Limited and the second respondent, Ms K. Hollington-Coombs, before taking maternity leave and later becoming pregnant again. The tribunal found that some early allegations about midwife appointments in 2016 were out of time and not proved, and it rejected the claimant's allegations that the second respondent made the more serious sex-related comments she alleged in 2017.
The tribunal upheld the pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim in relation to the claimant's exclusion from the Christmas party while she was on maternity leave. It found that the respondent accepted she was not invited because she was on maternity leave, that the claimant was upset and excluded by this treatment, and that the incident formed part of a continuing act. The tribunal also treated the later dismissal/redundancy process as unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy and maternity, finding no credible redundancy explanation and no fair consideration of alternatives or a selection pool.
On the dismissal issues, the tribunal found that the claimant was told at the 26 March 2018 meeting that she would be laid off or made redundant, but that this had been decided in advance and was not a consensual termination. It held that there was insufficient evidence that the claimant's role had genuinely become redundant, noted that staff had been taken on during her maternity leave to cover some of her work, and concluded that the respondent had not shown a potentially fair reason for dismissal. The dismissal was therefore unfair and automatically unfair under section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal also said, in the alternative, that the claimant had been constructively dismissed.
For remedy, the tribunal awarded the claimant three months' money rather than the year's loss she claimed, saying she had not shown that she was unable to work or to mitigate her loss. It awarded £1,675.02 as compensatory award including notice pay, plus £138.46 for loss of statutory rights, making £1,813.48 on the unfair dismissal claim. It also awarded £10,000 for injury to feelings on the pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim, with interest of £1,017.78 at 8% to 12 March 2019, giving a total award of £12,831.26.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed, rejected the respondent's case that this was a consensual redundancy, and held the dismissal unfair and automatically unfair under s.99 ERA 1996. It also said, in the alternative, that she had been constructively dismissed. | Upheld | — | £1,813 |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal upheld the claim in relation to unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy/maternity, including exclusion from the Christmas party and the treatment around the March 2018 lay-off/redundancy meeting and dismissal. Earlier alleged detriments in 2016 and some 2017 comments were rejected or found out of time. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £11,018 |
| Harassment | The tribunal rejected the alleged sex-related comments and found the evidence lacked credibility and detail. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,831
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,675
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.18 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- regulation 10 Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999
- Optare Group Limited v TGWU [2007] IRLR 931
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.