In person For the v Mr. T. Hussain, Internal Consultant, Salisbury Support 4 Autism Limited RESERVED WRITTEN — 2025

The tribunal said the claim form had also mentioned pregnancy and maternity discrimination, but that issue did not appear in the list of issues and the tribunal only determined the claims listed there. The claimant was employed by the respondent as a Behaviour Specialist, returned from maternity leave in May 2023 after moving to Cornwall, and had raised requests about flexible working and expressing milk at work. The hearing evidence centred on a 05/05/2023 telephone conversation between Mr. Harry and Ms. Mulligan, and on the respondent's handling of the claimant's return to work.

On indirect sex discrimination, the tribunal found the respondent applied a PCP of requiring employees to work full time, five days a week. It found that this placed women at a particular disadvantage, relying on the accepted position in Dobson v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust and on the evidence that the claimant could not find childcare on a Friday. The tribunal rejected the respondent's justification: it said the respondent had not given proper thought to the aim of the PCP, had not shown it to be a legitimate aim, and had not shown that requiring five days per week was proportionate. The indirect sex discrimination claim therefore succeeded.

On direct sex discrimination, the tribunal found that the respondent did not refuse the milk-expressing request and did not make the claimant express milk in her car or the toilet. However, it found that Mr. Harry made some comment that led Ms. Mulligan to tell the claimant to go back on maternity leave on 10/05/2023, and that this amounted to less favourable treatment because of sex. The tribunal held that a man returning from paternity leave would not have been treated in the same way, and that the respondent had not proved a non-sex reason for the treatment. The tribunal also found the claimant's evidence that she was told the request for flexible working had been rejected was not made out in the way alleged, because the tribunal found the request had not been finally refused in totality.

The constructive unfair dismissal claim failed. The tribunal accepted that making the claimant go back on maternity leave breached the implied term of trust and confidence and that the breach was fundamental, but it found that the claimant did not resign in response to that breach. It found that she resigned later, after an informal job offer from another employer and after she had already applied elsewhere. The harassment related to sex claim also failed because the tribunal did not accept the alleged conduct said to amount to harassment. The claim for failure to provide written particulars of employment succeeded because the respondent had produced the statement late and the tribunal did not accept the claimant's case that the document had been fabricated. No monetary award is recorded in this liability judgment.