Ms McAllister Mr Docherty Miss H McSorley Tooltime UK Ltd v Represented by: Mr D Hutcheson — 2019

The claimant told the respondent on 27 June 2018 that she was pregnant and was moved onto light duties. The tribunal later held that any failure to carry out a risk assessment was decided on that date, so the complaint was outside the three-month time limit. It refused to extend time under s.123 EqA 2010, taking account of the length of the delay, the lack of any explanation for it, and the fact that the claimant had taken no steps to seek advice until after her employment ended.

The harassment complaint succeeded. The tribunal accepted that the male employee asked the claimant to go out with him on more than one occasion after she had said she had a boyfriend and did not want to go out with him, took photographs of her, and made comments about her appearance and about not eating the same meal every night. Applying s.26(4) EqA 2010, it found the conduct was unwanted, of a sexual nature, and had the effect of violating the claimant's dignity and creating a humiliating environment.

The tribunal found that the claimant had periods of absence after a miscarriage and later because of depression, and that she was dismissed on 22 January 2019 because of her level of absenteeism and the absence of any indication of when she would return to work. It accepted that a male employee with under two years' service was dismissed at the same time for similar absence. On that basis, the tribunal rejected the claim that the dismissal was because of pregnancy or a pregnancy-related illness, and it also dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant lacked the qualifying service required for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. A separate remedy hearing was to be fixed for the harassment claim.