Hello everyone and thank you for joining us for our case of the week. Last week, we had the case of Mr I Stanley v The Village Bakery (Wrexham) Ltd involving a Claimant with a sight impairment who was dismissed during his probation period at a bakery. For anyone that missed it, you can find it here.
This week, we look at the case of Mrs M Dobson v Michael C Law Firm where a solicitor was made redundant soon after telling her manager she was pregnant.
Whilst this is a first tier case only, it does shine a light on some common mistakes when dealing with short service dismissals of people with protected characteristics.
Background
The Claimant, Mrs M Dobson, a conveyancing solicitor with nine years of post-qualification experience, began working for the Respondent, Michael C Law Firm, on 22 August 2022, on a part-time basis. Her salary was £21,000 per annum. By October 2022, financial difficulties arose and the Respondent was advised to reduce costs accordingly. Despite this, a receptionist was hired on 22 October 2022.
The Claimant was offered a directorship in January 2023 and she requested a pay raise to £30,000 per annum, citing her billing performance. Following discussions, the Respondent offered £24,000 per annum, which the Claimant rejected. On 1 February 2023, the Claimant disclosed her pregnancy to the Respondent who then rescinded the directorship offer.
The Claimant was dismissed on 28 February 2023, without prior warning or consultation. The Respondent alleged the dismissal was for economic reasons and insufficient work to support her position. The Claimant disputed the redundancy, stating her dismissal was related to her pregnancy. No formal appeal process was provided.
Tribunal
The Claimant’s claim was that, after disclosing her pregnancy to the Respondent, the offer of being promoted to a director was withdrawn and her employment was terminated for reasons related to her pregnancy. The Respondent denied the claims of pregnancy-related discrimination and asserted that a genuine redundancy situation existed which resulted in the Claimant’s dismissal.
The Tribunal found in the Claimant’s favour. The Respondent’s withdrawal of the Directorship and her termination of employment amounted to pregnancy related discrimination contrary to section 18 Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal also found that the Respondent did not prove sufficient grounds for the redundancy. The dismissal process was also deemed inconsistent and procedurally unfair contrary to ACAS Code of Practice 1 for dismissals and grievances. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant compensation plus interest for financial losses totalling £11,110.83, a 20% uplift for failing to comply with the ACAS Code of £2,112.15 and compensation plus interest for injury to feelings £13,251.93.
Takeaway Points
Section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 provides pregnant women with protection from discrimination if they are treated unfavourably during the protected period because of her pregnancy or a related illness. The protected period begins with the pregnancy and ends when additional maternity leave ends, or when the woman returns to work.
If there are facts suggesting discrimination (as there were in this case), the court must assume discrimination occurred, unless proven otherwise, such as the alleged discriminator providing evidence disproving the discrimination claim. Unfavourable treatment is not explicitly defined but could range from dismissal, or, failing to consult a pregnant woman on matters affecting her work. For a claim to succeed, the treatment must be influenced by the pregnancy, even if subconsciously. It does not need to be the sole reason but must be a factor.
In this case, the Respondent likely fell into the trap of assuming someone without two years’ service is fair game for dismissal without a process. Whilst this is often the case, for any case involving potential discrimination, whistleblowing or other statutory rights it is always worth engaging in a fair procedure that is well documented. Had the Respondent done this, they may have either succeeded in their defense or at least avoided the 20% uplift.
If you or someone you know are dealing with a similar issue, please contact us for further assistance.
Leave A Comment