Mrs. N Hefford v Dr M Jack and 4 others — 2020

The claimant was employed as a practice manager from 6 November 2017. The tribunal accepted that at interview she was asked about children and future childbearing, and it found that the practice had childbearing in mind. It also found that there were some partner concerns about her work before she announced her pregnancy, but those concerns were not taken up with her and were minor rather than formal performance issues. The bonus letter of 4 May 2018 was construed as covering extra income brought into the practice beyond the specific examples listed in the letter.

The claimant told the respondents she was pregnant on 6 November 2018. The tribunal accepted that on 9 November 2018 she overheard Dr Sivaprasad, Dr Azeem and Dr Aderonmu discussing her dismissal and looking for an excuse to sack her, and it preferred her evidence that she then told colleagues and made notes. It found that the later grievance and appeal process did not displace that finding, and that the January-February 2019 investigation was not a genuine investigation: the claimant was given no proper advance notice, the chair was not impartial, and the process did not follow ACAS best practice.

The tribunal held that the principal reason for dismissal was pregnancy, so automatic unfair dismissal under s.99 ERA 1996 succeeded. It also held that the claimant was treated unfavourably because of pregnancy under s.18 Equality Act 2010, including the planning of dismissal on false grounds, the unnecessary disciplinary process, the reliance on exaggerated allegations, the failure to pay the CCG money, and the failure to pay notice pay; it did not uphold the complaints about suspension or the deliberate timing of the dismissal email while she was in hospital. Victimisation under s.27 Equality Act 2010 also succeeded because the refusal to consider paying £9,300 followed her written grievance. On the contractual and wages issues, the tribunal found no gross misconduct, held that summary dismissal was wrongful, found an authorised overtime/payment entitlement arising from the CCG work, and held that the bonus scheme existed but the precise amount due would be fixed at remedy. No final monetary award was fixed in this liability judgment.