(1) Mrs Nikki Marie Roberts (2) Miss Rachael Catherine Sweeney v Effectual Limited and 1 other — 2019

The tribunal found that both Mrs Roberts and Miss Sweeney were employed as permanent warehouse operatives on general work, not on a fixed-term or exclusive Quality First contract. It rejected the respondents' case that the claimants had been recruited specifically for that customer workstream, and found there were no contractual documents or job descriptions supporting that position.

On the facts, the tribunal accepted that both claimants had told managers about their pregnancies before the dismissals: Mrs Roberts by text and later messages from February to April 2018, and Miss Sweeney by text on 5 April 2018 and later pregnancy-related communications in April 2018. It found the respondents' witnesses unreliable on knowledge and on the claimed loss of the Quality First contract, and held that the asserted redundancy situation was not proved.

Applying the s136 Equality Act burden of proof, and referring to the Igen/Barton approach and Madarassy, the tribunal concluded that there were facts from which unlawful discrimination could be inferred and that the respondents had not proved a non-discriminatory explanation. It found there had been no proper redundancy consultation or selection process, and that the claimants were simply dismissed by letter dated 2 May 2018 stating that contracts from China had been withdrawn, with employment ending on 10 May 2018.

The direct sex discrimination claims were rejected under s18(7) Equality Act 2010. The pregnancy discrimination claims under s18 Equality Act 2010 were upheld for both claimants against both respondents, and the case was listed for a further hearing to determine remedy.