Mrs Limara Davies v Active 8 Managed Technologies Limited — 2025

Mrs Limara Davies was employed by Active 8 Managed Technologies Limited from 28 May 2018 and later became Company Administrator on a full-time basis. The tribunal found that after she raised concerns in April 2021 she was placed on furlough again, her duties were redistributed, and after she told the Respondent she was pregnant in June 2021 no pregnancy risk assessment was carried out. It also found that the Respondent refused her requests to work from home or fewer hours before maternity leave, did not make adequate arrangements to keep in touch while she was on maternity leave, and did not inform her of workplace changes, including the part-time maternity cover arrangement.

On the indirect sex discrimination claim, the Respondent accepted that it applied PCPs requiring full-time hours, fixed working hours, and compliance with its flexible working policy, and accepted those PCPs disadvantaged women compared with men. The tribunal rejected the Respondent's justification case. It found the Respondent had not properly considered whether the role could be done part-time, had not engaged with the Claimant's proposals, and had produced no cogent evidence that refusing part-time working was a proportionate means of achieving its stated aims of operational efficiency, continuity, or cost control.

On pregnancy and maternity discrimination, the tribunal found a series of unfavourable acts during the protected period, including the removal of duties after the pregnancy was disclosed, the absence of any risk assessment, refusal of reduced hours or home working, the failure to keep her informed during maternity leave, and delay and refusal in dealing with her flexible working request. It held that these matters formed continuing behaviour connected with her pregnancy and maternity leave, and that the refusal of flexible working and the way the appeal was handled were part of that discriminatory treatment.

On the flexible working claim, the tribunal held that the Respondent did not deal with the application in a reasonable manner. It found the request made in July 2022 was not progressed promptly, the meeting of 26 September 2022 did not involve proper discussion of alternatives, the refusal letter relied on reasons that had not been evidenced, and the appeal was not properly or promptly heard. The tribunal also found that no valid business evidence had been produced to show that part-time working could not be accommodated.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that Mrs Davies resigned because of the discrimination she had suffered and the handling of the flexible working request. It found the Respondent had breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence and that there was no reasonable and proper cause for its conduct. The tribunal therefore found constructive unfair dismissal. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was listed for a later hearing on 9 January 2025.