Miss C Godley v Apex International UK Limited — 2019

Miss C Godley brought a claim under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 alleging that Apex International UK Limited dismissed her on 28 June 2018 because she was pregnant. The tribunal noted that an unfair dismissal claim could not be brought because she lacked the two years' service needed for ordinary unfair dismissal protection, and that section 13 direct discrimination was not the route taken because section 18 governs pregnancy-based dismissal claims.

The tribunal found that Mr Stacey had seen Facebook entries on 4 June 2018 which, on its reading, showed that the claimant was pregnant, and it was satisfied that he knew this before offering her the post. It accepted the respondent's evidence that there were genuine concerns about the claimant's performance, including mistakes and a lack of the detailed early-stage supply review that had been requested.

On the claimant's account, she told Mr Stacey on 25 June that she needed time off for an antenatal appointment and he reacted negatively; the tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence that she had referred to an antenatal appointment and that he replied, in substance, that he already knew she was pregnant. It found that the dismissal meeting on 28 June was unfair in the ordinary sense because it was arranged without warning and with no notes, but it held that procedural unfairness did not itself establish pregnancy discrimination.

Applying the burden of proof approach in Igen Ltd v Wong and the guidance in The Law Society and Others v Bahl, and bearing in mind Laing v Manchester City Council, the tribunal concluded that the evidence as a whole did not satisfy it on the balance of probabilities that pregnancy was the reason or a principal reason for dismissal. The letter of dismissal sent the following day was accepted as consistent with performance concerns, and the claim was dismissed.