Miss Abigail Boston-Smith v TAAE Management Limited — 2023

Miss Abigail Boston-Smith brought a section 18 Equality Act 2010 claim alleging pregnancy discrimination in seven factual allegations arising between 15 June and September 2021. She worked for TAAE Management Limited as a live-in carer for D, a vulnerable adult with quadriplegic cerebral palsy, and the dispute arose after she told the respondent she was pregnant in May 2021 and later went off sick with pregnancy-related anxiety and fatigue. The tribunal found that neither the respondent’s managers nor D or his mother, GW, had any problem with the pregnancy itself, and that the main issue was how her changing health, absence and D’s care arrangements interacted.

On allegations 1 to 4, the tribunal preferred the respondent’s evidence. It found that Ms Hagon’s June 2021 conversation with the claimant was a legitimate discussion about whether the claimant could continue in a live-in role given her tiredness and night-time disturbances, and that the claimant was reassured she was not being made redundant. The tribunal found no “hormonal” remark was made, or if it was then it was not unfavourable treatment. It also found that the risk assessment being conducted at D’s home, in his presence, had been agreed by the claimant and did not amount to unfavourable treatment. In addition, the tribunal held that Schedule 22 to the Equality Act 2010 applied to these health and safety steps.

The claimant also complained about being removed from D’s live-in role and not being offered another live-in role on the same terms. The tribunal held that moving her away from that assignment was not unfavourable treatment because her live-in placement was tied to a particular assignment rather than a permanent role with D, her care assistant contract remained in place, and the respondent offered other work within her employment. In any event, the tribunal found that the reason for the decision was GW and D’s concern about continuity and stability of care after the claimant’s repeated short-notice absences and changes in how she was caring for D, not the claimant’s pregnancy, sickness absence, or intended maternity leave. The tribunal accepted GW’s later email of 16 June 2022 as a genuine explanation of that decision.

Allegation 7 was different: the tribunal accepted that the respondent failed to take the grievance through to a formal outcome, and that this was unfavourable treatment. However, it found that the failure was caused by an administrative error and a mistaken belief that the tribunal claim meant the grievance should await the outcome of proceedings. The claimant’s pregnancy and maternity rights played no part in that mistake. Overall, the tribunal held that the claimant had established facts capable of raising an inference of discrimination, but the respondent rebutted that inference. The claim was dismissed in full and no monetary award was made.