Ms Stanikzai v IISAA Ltd — 2022

The claimant worked as a kitchen assistant from 27 November 2019. After she told Mr Rasheed that she was pregnant in late June or early July 2020, the tribunal found that he congratulated her and continued to communicate with her about rotas and lifts to work. It rejected the general allegation that he behaved in a hostile manner or ignored her requests after the pregnancy disclosure, and it was not persuaded that she had made a July 2020 request to reduce her hours that was ignored.

The tribunal upheld the pregnancy discrimination complaint in relation to the events of 24 August 2020 and afterwards. It found that the claimant wanted shorter shifts, not a drastic reduction in total hours, but Mr Rasheed reduced her work from about 37 hours a week to 15 hours, told her she could work those hours or leave, and later blocked her on WhatsApp. Those acts were found to be unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy, and the tribunal applied section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 together with the burden of proof approach in section 136, referring to O'Neill, Igen and Madarassy.

The tribunal also upheld wrongful dismissal. It found that the claimant did not resign, that during the September meeting Mr Rasheed told her she did not need to come to work, and that the dismissal became clear when the respondent emailed her P45 on 23 September 2020 showing a leaving date of 20 September 2020. The claimant was entitled to one week's notice but did not receive it. On time limits, the tribunal held that the acts before 16 September 2020 formed conduct extending over a period ending with the dismissal, and that it would in any event have been just and equitable to extend time if needed. No remedy was determined in this judgment; a remedy hearing was listed for 28 September 2022.