Case 3220068/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Musguin v Breyer Group plc — 2022
- Case reference
- 3220068/2020
- Decision date
- 6 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr P Lowe, Mr P Lush
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Musguin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as an HR Adviser from 3 July 2017 and was on maternity leave from 17 June 2019 to 18 August 2020. In July 2020 the respondent recruited Fiona to cover the HR Co-ordinator role at a salary intended to be £27,000, increased to £28,000 when she negotiated that figure to fill the vacancy. The claimant later learned of the pay difference and sought an increase to reflect her senior role.
The tribunal accepted the claimant's contemporaneous WhatsApp messages and found that on 24 August 2020 Mr Rayat told her the pay-rise request had been refused because she would only be in the business for four months before her next period of maternity leave. That refusal was treated as unfavourable treatment contrary to section 18 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal rejected the associated allegations that she should have received a higher pay rise when Fiona was recruited or that any increase should have been backdated to 22 July 2020, finding Fiona's salary was set by market rates for the HR Co-ordinator role and that the claimant's maternity leave was not a material cause of the later pay differential.
The tribunal also dismissed the complaint about company sick pay. It found the respondent had changed its sickness policy in March 2020 so that sickness absence was paid at SSP only for all staff, and the claimant was not treated differently under that policy. It further found that her absence was due to work-related stress, not pregnancy-related illness, and that there was no unlawful deduction from wages or breach of contract. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the employment was ongoing when the claim was presented on 26 November 2020.
On remedy, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was upset and distressed by the discriminatory refusal of the pay rise but did not find that this act caused her sickness absence or loss of earnings. It therefore made no award for financial loss, but awarded £9,000 for injury to feelings, placing the case in the lower Vento band at the upper end, with interest from 24 August 2020.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Refusal of a pay rise on or around 24 August 2020 because the claimant was due to start maternity leave at Christmas; the tribunal accepted the claimant's contemporaneous WhatsApp messages and preferred her evidence on what Mr Rayat told her. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £9,000 |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Allegation that the claimant should have received the pay rise when Fiona was recruited as HR Co-ordinator, or that it should have been backdated to 22 July 2020; the tribunal found Fiona's pay was set by market rates for a different role and maternity leave was not a material cause. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Allegation relating to the claimant being paid SSP rather than company sick pay during pregnancy; the tribunal found the March 2020 policy change applied generally and the absence was work-related stress, not pregnancy-related. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Company sick pay/SSP claim dismissed; the tribunal held the claimant was paid what was due under the revised sickness policy. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.18 Equality Act 2010
- Williams v Trustees of Swansea University Pension & Assurance Scheme [2018] UKSC 65
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen Ltd v Wong [2005] IRLR 258, CA
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc [2007] IRLR 246, CA
- s.13 ERA 1996
- Vento
- Gestmin
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.