Ms Fariba Ghazaeepour v Hamlin Knight Limited — 2018

Ms Fariba Ghazaeepour worked for Hamlin Knight Limited from 6 August 2018 until her dismissal on 8 February 2019, subject to a six-month probationary period and targets set out at the start of employment. She told the respondent she was pregnant on 20 September 2018. The claim presented on 20 March 2019 alleged pregnancy discrimination contrary to s.18 Equality Act 2010 in relation to a series of management decisions and emails between September 2018 and February 2019.

The tribunal found that the respondent had genuine and valid performance concerns by October 2018 and that the claimant was not meeting the financial and activity targets that had been set for her. It rejected the allegation that house accounts, including Todd Doors, were reallocated because of pregnancy, finding the change was prompted by Ms Johnson’s resignation and client-care concerns. It also found that the claimant’s attendance at the Todd Doors meeting, the October review meetings, the probation review being brought forward, and the change in commission arrangements were not because of pregnancy.

The tribunal further found that the laptop restriction on 6 November 2018 reflected an office-wide sign-off policy being prepared by Mr Hinch, not pregnancy. It rejected the allegations that Ms Balmer turned Miss Mills against the claimant, that the claimant was rushed at a candidate pre-interview because of pregnancy, that Ms Balmer was hostile on 9 November because of pregnancy, or that the email correspondence was pregnancy-related discrimination. Some of Ms Balmer’s tone was described as exasperated or perhaps officious, but the tribunal found the conduct was driven by concern about performance and the claimant’s attitude, not pregnancy.

On dismissal, the tribunal found that failure to meet targets was the primary reason and that dismissal was inevitable given the claimant’s performance, even after allowing for absences. It therefore dismissed the s.18 pregnancy discrimination claim in full. As the claim failed on liability, no remedy was awarded and the tribunal did not need to decide the time-limit issue for the pre-5 November 2018 allegations.