Case 2306228/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Abigail Hayler v Michelle Meyer and Deborah Dior t/a Beachcombers — 2025
- Case reference
- 2306228/2023
- Decision date
- 20 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Fowell
- Panel members
- Mrs S Dengate, Mr R Singh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Abigail Hayler
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Hayler worked at Beachcombers as an apprentice hairdresser and told the respondents on 24 July 2023 that she was pregnant. The tribunal accepted that Ms Meyer said she was too young to have a baby, that she had not thought about the business, that she would be expected to return full-time, and that she might have to repay £1,000 of apprenticeship costs. It did not uphold the allegation about tablets to end the pregnancy, and it found no proved unfavourable treatment in relation to social events or the failure to carry out a pregnancy risk assessment, the latter being explained by the respondents' lack of awareness of the obligation.
On 1 August 2023 the claimant's hours were reduced from 40 to 30 per week, and on 8 August 2023 she was told that she would be made redundant. The tribunal accepted that the salon had financial difficulties, but held that the evidence did not show that the dismissal was in no sense whatsoever tainted by discrimination. It found that the respondents had not discharged the burden under section 136 Equality Act 2010, applying the section 18 Equality Act 2010 test, the significant influence approach in Nagarajan, and the burden-shift guidance in Barton and Igen.
The tribunal also upheld the alternative claim of automatically unfair dismissal. It held that the dismissal was connected with pregnancy for the purposes of section 99 ERA 1996 and Regulation 20 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999. The discrimination award comprised agreed financial loss of £4,060, an ACAS uplift, injury to feelings assessed at £13,450, further ACAS uplift, and interest. The tribunal recorded a total discrimination compensation figure of £24,768, plus a basic award of £100 for unfair dismissal, giving a total award of £24,868. It also noted that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 did not apply because the compensation was for discrimination and benefits had been taken into account.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal upheld the section 18 Equality Act 2010 pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim. The reasons section contains an apparent arithmetic inconsistency on the first 25% ACAS uplift line for the agreed financial loss: it prints £1,035, but the subtotal of £5,075, the later financial loss figure of £5,453, and the overall discrimination total of £24,768 indicate the award was calculated using £1,015. The judgment records that the respondents' financial reasons did not displace the inference that the treatment was tainted by pregnancy. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £24,768 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the dismissal was automatically unfair under section 99 ERA 1996 because it was connected with pregnancy. The only separate award recorded for this claim was a basic award of £100. | Upheld | — | £100 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £24,868
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £100
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £21,888
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 18 Equality Act 2010
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- section 136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd
- Igen & Ors v Wong guidance
- section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 20 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999
- Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
- ACAS Code of Practice
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.