Mrs H Camara v East London NHS Foundation Trust — 2020

The tribunal found that the claimant worked as a temporary Band 4 bank administrator from January to August 2018. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the assignment was terminated because of budgetary pressures, the planned move to Vicarage Lane, and the lack of any continuing need for a temporary administrator post. It rejected the claim that pregnancy was the reason or principal reason for dismissal, finding that discussions about ending the assignment had already begun and that the pregnancy in fact prolonged rather than shortened the claimant's employment.

The tribunal rejected the remaining July 2018 pregnancy-related allegations. It found that the administration meeting on 24 July 2018 and the spreadsheet task were not unfavourable treatment and were not connected to pregnancy or sex. It also found that the delayed risk assessment was not omitted because of pregnancy, but because Ms Douglas-Obobi thought the claimant's appointment would soon end and considered the assessment unnecessary; the tribunal also found no identified disadvantage flowing from that delay.

The tribunal did, however, accept the claimant's evidence that after being told of the pregnancy, Ms Douglas-Obobi asked words to the effect of "did you plan this?" and "will this have to come out of my budget?". It found those comments were made in direct reaction to the pregnancy announcement, were objectively inappropriate and upsetting, and amounted to unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy during the protected period. On that limited basis, the pregnancy discrimination claim succeeded.

Although that act occurred outside the ordinary time limit, the tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis. It relied on the short delay, the claimant's personal and financial circumstances, her prompt grievance and ACAS steps once notice was given, her status as an unrepresented litigant with limited resources, and the absence of material prejudice to the respondent.