In person For the v Respondent — 2021

After joining the business in 2017, the claimant moved onto a permanent contract and the tribunal accepted that the parties had already experienced friction over attendance and flexible working, including March 2018 warnings that were not issued using the handbook procedure. The tribunal found, however, that the claimant told Ms Naigaonkar she was pregnant on 11 September 2018, later reported morning sickness on 1 October 2018, and suffered a miscarriage after bleeding on 29 October 2018 and surgery on 1 November 2018.

The tribunal held that Ms Naigaonkar's 9 November 2018 email, which said the claimant had been absent since 29 October without notification and arranged a return-to-work meeting, was not a supportive communication and was unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy and illness suffered as a result of it. It also held that the 21 November 2018 meeting outcome, which treated the absence as uninformed and told the claimant to treat it as a warning for further absences, was unfavourable treatment and that the respondent had not followed its usual return-to-work process. Those facts also supported the alternative detriment complaint under s.47C ERA.

The tribunal found that Mr Rane dismissed the claimant on 10 January 2019, with the dismissal confirmed by email on 14 January 2019 and a final leaving date of 16 January 2019. It rejected the respondents' case that she resigned, found no cause to dismiss her, and concluded that the dismissal was because of pregnancy and pregnancy-related absence. The tribunal extended time for the Equality Act complaints as just and equitable under s.123 EqA, but dismissed the remaining allegations about earlier warnings, laptop changes, desk and chair issues, and a wider campaign to make her working life difficult.