Case 3314488/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Z McGill v Stay with US MPB Ltd Final Hearing — 2025
- Case reference
- 3314488/2023
- Decision date
- 18 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Boyes G.
- Panel members
- G. Page, D. Hart
Parties
2 namedMrs Z McGill
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Boyes with members G. Page and D. Hart dismissed the claimant's pregnancy discrimination claims under both section 18(2)(a) and 18(2)(b) of the Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal found that the various allegations of unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy (unjustified fault-finding, removal from work WhatsApp chats, discussing the pregnancy with colleagues, breach of health and safety in asking her to lift a microwave, and withholding a company vehicle) were either not made out on the facts or, where they did amount to unfavourable treatment, were not because of pregnancy.
In particular, the Tribunal found the delay in providing the company vehicle did amount to unfavourable treatment but was caused by the lead time for delivery and signwriting rather than the pregnancy. On the microwave lifting incident the judge found Jane Quaintrell was not informed the claimant was unwell and the load was borderline as to heaviness.
In relation to sick pay, the Tribunal found there was no contractual entitlement to full salary on sickness absence, and as the respondent had no other employees there was no comparator. Statutory sick pay was paid as required. PDF text was truncated; the full chronology of WhatsApp removal was not entirely visible.
Claims and outcomes
4 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
2 referencesSource document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.