Ms L Singleton v Lancashire County Council — 2024

The Tribunal found that the pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaints, all relating to events in July 2020, were presented very considerably out of time. It declined to extend time, noting the claimant remained at work for several months after the events and had trade union advice. In the alternative, it found the alleged acts were either not made out on the facts or were not shown to be because of pregnancy or pregnancy-related illness.

The direct sex discrimination complaint concerned alleged collection of information between December 2021 and March 2022 about the claimant's availability, including breastfeeding breaks. The Tribunal found that managers did not solicit complaints, but received concerns from staff that the claimant was unavailable on shift without colleagues knowing when or for how long. It concluded that the respondent acted because of concerns about availability while working, not because of sex.

For harassment related to sex, the Tribunal held that the 14 July 2020 passive aggressive allegation was out of time and not part of a continuing course of harassment. The March 2022 allegations were not well founded: questioning about a weekend case arose from concerns about case handling; questioning about availability and the baby's age was found to be a reasonable exploration of the claimant's asserted breastfeeding explanation; and the alleged facial expressions of disgust were not made out.

On equal pay, the respondent accepted broad similarity of work and the Tribunal found the claimant's work was like Mr Norris's work. However, it found the pay difference arose because Mr Norris was appointed at grade 9 while the claimant was appointed at grade 8, based on his greater post-qualification experience and experience in both adult and child social care. The Tribunal held that this was a material factor not involving direct or indirect sex discrimination, so the equal pay complaint was not well founded.