McManus Members: Mrs L Crooks Mr A McFarlane Ms P Rodger v Appropriate Services Ltd — 2019

The claimant told the respondent on 19 February 2018 that she was pregnant and sent guidance on pregnancy rights and Statutory Maternity Pay. The tribunal found that no pregnancy risk assessment was carried out, that the respondent did not discuss maternity arrangements with her, and that on 26 March 2018 the claimant was told her hours would be reduced from 35 to 14 per week without consultation. The tribunal found that the claimant did not agree to the change and continued to work under protest.

The tribunal rejected the respondent's explanation that the reduction was driven only by financial difficulty. It found that the respondent had recruited the claimant to a permanent 35-hour role in November 2017, that business hours had increased rather than fallen, and that the claimant's pregnancy and intention to take maternity leave were the reason, or at least a significant influence, for the reduction in hours. The tribunal applied the burden of proof under section 136 of the Equality Act 2010, the Barton/Igen guidelines, and the 'significant influence' approach in Nagarajan.

The tribunal also found victimisation. After the claimant's solicitors wrote on 30 April 2018 alleging pregnancy discrimination, the respondent did not pay SMP, did not complete or return an SMP1 form, and did not deal with accrued holiday pay. Fredrick Roberts accepted in evidence that the fact of these tribunal proceedings was a factor in not signing the SMP1 form. The tribunal held that the claimant had done protected acts by making the allegation and bringing proceedings, and that the respondent's conduct was because of those protected acts.

On remedy, the tribunal awarded £10,223.28 for pregnancy and maternity discrimination, made up of £9,700.92 compensation and £522.36 interest. It awarded £25,612.15 for victimisation, made up of £24,959.36 compensation and £652.79 interest. The tribunal recorded that the unlawful deductions head succeeded in respect of unpaid SMP and holiday pay, but made no separate award under that head because the related financial loss was already reflected in the Equality Act awards to avoid double recovery. It also made a recommendation that, if the respondent later decides during the remainder of the claimant's maternity leave that she is no longer entitled to SMP, it should complete and return the SMP1 form within seven days.