Miss C Ruff v Aimee Hair — 2019

Miss C Ruff brought a pregnancy discrimination complaint against Aimee Hair. The respondent argued that she was self-employed and that the tribunal had no jurisdiction. At the preliminary hearing on 10 January 2019, Employment Judge Jones heard evidence from both sides and addressed only the issue of employment status and jurisdiction under section 83(2)(a) Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal found that the claimant worked set days, had to let the respondent know when she would not attend, and did not simply attend when she wanted. Appointments were made through the salon reception, her clients were entered into the respondent’s database, and she was not allowed to take client contact details with her when she left. The tribunal also found that she was trained to the salon’s standards, was expected to work to those standards, could not send a substitute, and used the respondent’s insurance and pricing arrangements.

Applying Autoclenz v Belcher and Pimlico Plumbers v Smith, the tribunal concluded that the reality of the arrangement was a contract for the claimant to provide work personally. It found that Aimee Hair was not a client or customer of hers. The tribunal therefore held that the claimant was an employee within the Equality Act definition and that it had jurisdiction to hear the pregnancy discrimination complaint. The judgment then set case management directions for the future substantive hearing; it did not decide the merits of the discrimination claim.