Case 3307421/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person Interpreter: Mr N Jones For the v Mr J Gilbert (consultant) — 2020
- Case reference
- 3307421/2018
- Decision date
- 11 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Milner-Moore Members
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Ms S Hughes, Mr D Palmer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person Interpreter: Mr N Jones For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as a cleaner for the respondents from 22 August 2017 and told Ms Heijink that she was pregnant on or around 24 November 2017. The tribunal found that the respondents had not carried out any suitable and sufficient risk assessment for women of childbearing age or for the claimant after she announced her pregnancy. It accepted that only a brief discussion took place about avoiding chemicals and heavy lifting, but found there was no systematic assessment of the claimant's role or of other possible risks. Applying section 18 Equality Act 2010 and the authorities cited in the reasons, the tribunal held that the failure to assess risk was unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy.
The tribunal rejected the other complaints said to arise under section 18. It found that the request on 31 January 2018 for the claimant and her colleague to clean one more room was not because of pregnancy, but because they were below the hotel's usual room-cleaning expectation and had fallen behind after the colleague's bereavement. It did not accept that Ms Heijink criticised the claimant for going to the toilet too often, and it found no evidence that any criticism of work rate was motivated by pregnancy. Although it found that the claimant was dismissed by Ms Heijink during a heated exchange, it held that the dismissal, and Mr Harries-Jones' later refusal to reinstate her, were not because of pregnancy.
On limitation, the tribunal extended time for the Equality Act complaint on a just and equitable basis under section 123(1) because the claimant promptly sought advice from the CAB, misunderstood the ACAS process because of language difficulties, and the respondent suffered no prejudice. By contrast, it held that the section 47(c) and section 99 ERA claims were out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented in time. The tribunal therefore said it had no jurisdiction to hear those complaints. It awarded £1,500 for injury to feelings and £277.48 interest, calculated from 24 November 2017 to the hearing date at 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The claim succeeded only in relation to the respondent's failure to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment for the claimant as a pregnant employee. The tribunal rejected the allegations about being required to clean more rooms, comments about toilet visits, criticism of work rate, and dismissal as pregnancy-related treatment. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £1,500 |
| Other | Section 47(c) ERA 1996 detriment complaint. The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was presented outside the relevant statutory time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Section 99 ERA 1996 automatically unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was presented outside the relevant statutory time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,777
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010 just and equitable extension
- s.48(3)(a) and s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 reasonably practicable
- section 18 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Hardman v Mallen
- Madarassy v Nomura
- Stephenson Withy v Skinner
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.