Case 3309741/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Aymer, Union representative For the v Mr E Walker, Litigation Consultant — 2024

Case reference: 3309741/2022
Decision date: 20 October 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Bedeau Members
Venue: Watford
Panel members: Mr S Bury, Mr N Boustred

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr A Aymer, Union representative For the

Respondent

Mr E Walker, Litigation Consultant

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mrs Sana Shah began work with The Everglade Medical Practice in January 2016 and was promoted to Reception Manager in December 2019. After returning from maternity leave on 21 February 2022, she complained that duties and responsibilities had been taken away from her and given to Ms Cieli O'Donnell, that she had been ignored by management, and that her grievances were not properly investigated. She also alleged pregnancy and maternity discrimination, race discrimination, harassment related to race, victimisation, and constructive dismissal.

The tribunal rejected the pregnancy and maternity discrimination case. It found that the 21 March 2022 return-to-work meeting had been converted into a complaint investigation, which was unfavourable to the claimant, but held that this was not because of pregnancy or maternity and was instead the result of Ms Buckingham following HR advice. It also found that the 25p hourly pay rise was linked to the practice's move towards the London Living Wage, and that the Facilities Manager vacancy was at the same level of seniority as Reception Manager and was not a promotion. The related regulation 19 claim and the section 47C ERA 1996 detriment claim were also dismissed.

The direct race discrimination, race harassment, and victimisation claims were dismissed. The tribunal found that some managerial tasks and training responsibilities had been given to Ms O'Donnell because Ms Buckingham regarded her as more competent and efficient, not because of race, and that Ms O'Donnell was not an apt comparator. It accepted that the claimant was ignored in the 7 July 2022 blood-pressure discussion and at the 1 August 2022 data-protection meeting, but found no evidence that those incidents were related to race. The protected act relied on for victimisation was the 21 April 2022 email and grievance, but the tribunal found no significant influence from that protected act on the decisions complained of.

The pleaded constructive discriminatory dismissal was dismissed, but the constructive unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal found that the cumulative effect of the respondent's conduct, including the removal of duties without prior consultation, the way the 21 March 2022 meeting was handled, the claimant being ignored, the 1 August 2022 meeting without prior warning, and weaknesses in the grievance process, amounted to a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It found that the claimant did not affirm that breach by waiting until 5 October 2022 to resign, and the case was listed for a remedy hearing on 13 December 2024.

Claims and outcomes

8 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	The claimant alleged unfavourable treatment during and after maternity leave, including the 21 March 2022 meeting, the 25p per hour pay rise, and the Facilities Manager vacancy. The tribunal found the pay rise was to align staff pay with the London Living Wage, and that the 21 March 2022 meeting became a complaint investigation but was not because of pregnancy or maternity. It also found the claimant was aware of the Facilities Manager role and did not apply.	Dismissed	Pregnancy and maternity	—
Other	Claim under regulation 19 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999. The tribunal accepted that the 21 March 2022 meeting was a detriment, but held that it was not because of pregnancy or maternity and dismissed the claim.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	Claim under section 47C Employment Rights Act 1996 arising from an alleged failure to inform the claimant of a career opportunity while on maternity leave. The tribunal found that the only identified vacancy was Facilities Manager, that it was at the same level of seniority as Reception Manager, and that the claimant was reducing her hours, so the claim failed.	Dismissed	—	—
Race discrimination	Direct race discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal accepted that some managerial duties and responsibilities moved to Ms Cieli O'Donnell, but found this was because Ms Buckingham regarded Ms O'Donnell as more experienced, competent and efficient, not because of race. It also rejected the comparison relied on by the claimant.	Dismissed	Race	—

Legal tests applied

16 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.