Mr N Brackley v Ramco UK Ltd — 2024

At a preliminary hearing on 15 July 2024, Employment Judge Adkinson sitting alone considered strike out and deposit issues in Mr N Brackley v Ramco UK Ltd. The claimant was not continuously employed for two years, so he could not pursue ordinary unfair dismissal. The judge also recorded the claimant's case that he was dismissed after telling the respondent on 15 August 2023 that his wife was pregnant, and that the respondent then took a capability route rather than rely on misconduct.

The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because it was brought under section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 20 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999, which apply to the employee's own pregnancy. The judge held that the claimant was not pregnant and could not bring himself within those provisions. The pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 was also struck out because that provision protects the pregnant woman, not a claimant relying on his wife's pregnancy. The judge relied on the wording of section 18 and on Kulikaoskas v MacDuff Shellfish in reaching that conclusion.

The direct sex discrimination claim was not struck out. The judge held that, in law, a claim of direct sex discrimination by association with a pregnant wife was arguable, referring to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, Brown v Rentokil, Coleman v Attridge Law, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission Employment Code. However, the judge considered it had little reasonable prospect of success because the respondent's documents suggested a capability process and genuine performance concerns. Taking the claimant's disposable income and savings into account, the tribunal ordered a £100 deposit as a condition of continuing that claim, to be paid within 21 days.