Case 3201128/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Gugliotta v All Saints Retail Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201128/2018
- Decision date
- 24 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Crosfill Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms K Labinjo, Mr P Pendle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Gugliotta
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs S Gugliotta worked for All Saints Retail Limited as a Product Developer from May 2016 and was pregnant when she was dismissed on 12 February 2018. The tribunal found that by late 2017 the respondent had decided to outsource its footwear business to GBG and restructure its sourcing operation, but that this was not explained to the claimant promptly. It accepted that the way the process was handled caused her understandable concern, including delays in communication, exclusion from some meetings and the omission of her role from the restructure chart.
On the pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim under section 18 Equality Act 2010, and the related detriment claim under section 47C ERA 1996, the tribunal considered each alleged detriment separately. It found that some of the events could amount to detriments, including the withholding of information about GBG, the way the new structure was communicated, exclusion from some meetings and conversations, and the lack of timely responses to her emails. However, it held that the reasons were commercial restructuring, confidentiality around the outsourcing, budgetary or attendance decisions, or general managerial high-handedness, rather than pregnancy or an intention to take maternity leave.
The tribunal also rejected the allegation that the claimant was unlawfully denied suitable alternative employment. It accepted Marc Kilbourn's evidence that the Leather and Fabric/Trim Buyer roles required category-specific experience and that he genuinely considered the claimant unsuitable for those roles. It also found that the proposed Non-Apparel product developer role had been abandoned and was never filled. The dismissal itself was found to be redundancy caused by the outsourcing to GBG, not pregnancy or maternity, so both the dismissal limb of the Equality Act claim and the automatic unfair dismissal claim under sections 94 and 99 ERA 1996 failed. The appeal was criticised as inadequate and inexperienced, but not found to be discriminatory.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Claim that the respondent treated the claimant unfavourably because of pregnancy and/or intended maternity leave, including in relation to the outsourcing/restructure, meetings, communications, alternative roles and dismissal. The tribunal accepted that some events were detriments in fact but held that the reasons were commercial restructuring, confidentiality, budgetary or role-specific considerations, not pregnancy or maternity. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Other | Section 47C ERA 1996 detriment claim, relying on the same factual allegations as the Equality Act claim. The tribunal found that any detriments were not done for a prescribed pregnancy-related reason and were instead explained by the outsourcing decision and related management choices. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under sections 94 and 99 ERA 1996. The tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy following the GBG outsourcing and that pregnancy or maternity played no part in the decision. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Igen v Wong / Madarassy burden-shifting approach
- Fecitt materially influenced test
- s.99 ERA 1996 and regulation 20 Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999
- Maund v Penwith District Council
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.