Case 2502105/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L I Odii v Somerset Bridge Ltd Heard: Remotely (by video link) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2502105/2020
- Decision date
- 5 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore NLM
- Panel members
- Mrs S Don, Mr P Curtis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L I Odii
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim under section 18 Equality Act 2010. It found that extending the claimant's probationary period, keeping the extension in place, raising performance concerns and closely monitoring performance were not unfavourable treatment. In any event, the tribunal said it would not have found those matters were because of pregnancy, and it found that no critical or offensive pregnancy-related comments were made.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant's grievance dated 13 July 2020 was a protected act. It disposed of the victimisation allegations separately. The allegations about the probation extension, keeping the extension in place, performance concerns and close monitoring were dismissed upon withdrawal. The tribunal then found that the claimant's performance parameters and expectations were not changed weekly, or at all, and that she was not subjected to an intimidating and aggressive rant on 4 August 2020; in both instances, it said that even if those matters had occurred, it would not have found they were because of the protected act.
The automatic unfair constructive dismissal claim under section 99(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 failed because the tribunal found that the claimant was not dismissed. In the alternative, it would not have found that any dismissal was for pregnancy, childbirth or maternity. The tribunal also held that it had no jurisdiction to hear a standard unfair dismissal claim because the claimant lacked two years' continuous service, and it rejected the wrongful dismissal/breach of contract claim for notice pay because it found no breach of contract. This was a liability-only judgment and no remedy award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Claim under section 18 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found the respondent extended the claimant's probationary period, kept the extension in place, raised performance concerns and subjected her performance to close monitoring, but held that this was not unfavourable treatment. In the alternative, it would not have found the treatment was because of pregnancy. It also found no critical or offensive comments related to pregnancy. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal recorded that the claimant's grievance dated 13 July 2020 was a protected act. The allegations that her probationary period was extended, the extension was kept in place, performance concerns were raised, and her performance was closely monitored and criticised because she did the protected act were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found that the claimant's performance parameters and expectations were not changed weekly, or at all. In the alternative, if they had been changed, the tribunal would not have found that this was because she did the protected act. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found that the claimant was not subjected to an intimidating and aggressive rant on 4 August 2020. In the alternative, if such a rant had occurred, the tribunal would not have found that it was because she did the protected act. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 18 Equality Act 2010
- protected act
- section 99(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- two years' continuous service
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.