Case 4107280/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr R McAuley v Sandvik Materials Limited t/a Kanthal — 2019

Case reference: 4107280/2019
Decision date: 19 December 2019
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge I McFatridge
Venue: Dundee

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr R McAuley

Respondent

Sandvik Materials Limited t/a Kanthal

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the preliminary hearing on 9 December 2019, Mr R McAuley said he had agreed overtime for 9 March 2019 but had to go to hospital with his pregnant partner in an emergency, and he alleged that he was then disciplined and dismissed. The respondent argued that the pregnancy/maternity part of the claim had no reasonable prospect of success because the Equality Act did not recognise associative pregnancy discrimination for a male claimant.

The tribunal accepted that section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 was limited to unfavourable treatment of a woman in relation to her own pregnancy or maternity. Relying on the statutory wording and the authorities it discussed, including Kulikaoskas v MacDuff Shellfish and Brown v Rentokil, it held that the claimant could not pursue a claim under section 18 based on his partner's pregnancy. That part of the claim was therefore dismissed.

The tribunal refused the respondent's strike-out application so far as the claim was framed as sex discrimination. It held that section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 did not prevent a claim based on association, and it referred to Coleman v Attridge Law, Gyenes v Highland Welcome (UK) Limited t/a The Star Hotel, and EAD Solicitors LLP v Abrams in reaching that view. However, it said the pleadings were not yet clear enough on the effect of the alleged treatment on the person with the protected characteristic and on why the claimant said the treatment was because of his partner's pregnancy, so it ordered further information within 28 days and a further preliminary hearing to be fixed. No remedy was decided at this hearing.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Sex discrimination	At this preliminary hearing the respondent's application to strike out the sex discrimination part of the claim was refused. The tribunal held that associative direct sex discrimination was in principle possible under section 13, but said the pleadings required further particulars and the claim was not finally determined at this hearing.	Other	Sex	—
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	The claimant, a male, relied on his partner's pregnancy. The tribunal held that section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 protects a woman in relation to her own pregnancy or maternity and does not extend to associative pregnancy/maternity discrimination, so this part of the claim was dismissed.	Dismissed	Pregnancy and maternity	—

Legal tests applied

7 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

Published 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.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.