Mrs Suman Sharma v Slough Children’s Services Trust — 2020

Mrs Sharma worked for Slough Children’s Services Trust from 25 April 2017 until her dismissal on 27 April 2018. The tribunal found that the Probationary Policy and Procedure was incorporated into her contract through clause 5(i) of her statement of particulars, and that the respondent breached contract by failing to follow that policy during probation, including by omitting a first probation review, not arranging regular one-to-one supervision in the first months, not providing an induction and personal development plan, and not following the policy when probation was extended in October and December 2017.

On the Equality Act claim, the tribunal held that the treatment of the claimant after she returned to work on 3 April 2018 amounted to direct discrimination because of pregnancy and maternity, and also because of sex. It found that she was not given back her own cases, was put on the duty role every day in April 2018, was asked to assist other staff, was not given a fair opportunity to improve after losing two months of her extended probation through pregnancy-related sickness absence, was not given weekly supervision in April 2018, and was dismissed on 27 April 2018. The tribunal rejected the respondent’s explanation that this was because of a phased return and held that the claimant’s pregnancy played a part in the treatment.

The tribunal also upheld the claim for harassment related to sex. It found that Mr Makoni’s conduct in April 2018, including the early morning email requiring duty cover on the claimant’s first day back, the lack of support and sympathy, the increased scrutiny, the refusal to allocate cases, and comments in the probation report, had the effect of violating her dignity or creating a humiliating or hostile environment. It further found that Ms Jacob’s attendance at the final probation review meeting on 26 and 27 April 2018 without notice to the claimant was unwanted conduct that had the required effect.

The remaining harassment allegations about missing notes, the Indian Embassy letter, and delayed notice pay were dismissed, as were the victimisation complaint and the automatic unfair dismissal complaint based on protected disclosure. Although the tribunal found that the claimant made a qualifying and protected disclosure at the 27 April 2018 meeting about staff emotional well-being and safeguarding, it held that the disclosure was not the principal reason for dismissal. Remedy was assessed for the discrimination and harassment findings only: £3,775.58 for financial loss, £10,000 for injury to feelings, interest of £328.53 and £1,740.27 respectively, and no separate award for breach of contract. The total award was £15,844.38.