Miss Gemma Wharton v Mr. Richard Harrington and 1 other — 2021

The tribunal found the claimant, Miss Gemma Wharton, had notified the respondents of her pregnancy in early November 2018 and then provided her MAT B1 form in December 2018. It accepted her evidence that the grooming work involved risks from lifting, restraining and being knocked over by dogs, and held that no adequate pregnancy-specific risk assessment was carried out. Applying the Equality Act 2010 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, the tribunal concluded that the failure to assess the risks was unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy and maternity and therefore well founded.

The tribunal also upheld the complaint about the failure to provide a chair after the claimant asked for one on 12 December 2018. It preferred the claimant's and Mr Sellars' evidence that the first respondent had delayed repeatedly and had not arranged the chair, despite the claimant's swollen feet and the need to stand for long periods while grooming dogs. The tribunal found that the absence of a chair caused detriment and unfavourable treatment, and that the respondents had not provided a non-discriminatory explanation.

The tribunal next found that the new contract presented on 3 May 2019, three days before maternity leave, was unfavourable treatment because it was pressed on the claimant without proper notice or review. It held that the timing and pressure to sign supported an inference that the treatment was because she was pregnant and about to take maternity leave. It also found that the revised contract changed her title from Manager and Head of Grooming to Senior Boarding Kennel Assistant and Groomer and removed management duties such as rotas, HR records and cashing up, which the tribunal said amounted to a demotion.

Finally, the tribunal upheld the grievance complaint. The claimant emailed on 15 May 2019 raising concerns about the contract and demotion, but the first respondent did not respond until 5 August 2019, and then only in an incomplete way. The tribunal found that the delay and inadequate response were detrimental and unfavourable treatment because she was on maternity leave. It held that all of the discriminatory acts formed a course of conduct, so the claim was in time under section 123 Equality Act 2010; alternatively, time would have been extended as just and equitable if needed. Liability was therefore found on all complaints, and the case was listed for a separate remedy hearing.