REWARD
Cases in question
Nicola Mullineux, senior employment tax specialist for Peninsula, sheds light on three recent employment law cases and examines their outcomes
Pregnant employee awarded more than £350k in discrimination claim The employment tribunal (ET), in the case of Hinds v Mitie Limited, had to consider whether the treatment of an employee during pregnancy, maternity leave and upon her return to work constituted discrimination and entitled her to resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal. The claimant, who was around seven months pregnant at the time, sent an email to two of the respondent’s leadership team, both of whom had line management responsibilities for the claimant at various times. In the email, the claimant explained that she was “really struggling” with certain aspects of the role, had experienced two panic attacks that week and significantly disrupted sleep. She expressed concern that she might become seriously ill with work stress and anxiety because she was struggling mentally and physically with the workload. The claimant concluded her email with a request to establish a handover plan to resolve the situation.
No specific response was provided to the claimant about her email. Instead, an internal email was sent by one of the managers stating the claimant “has become very emotional and tearful, especially over the last week or so. I am very frustrated with this as she is certainly not overworked, and we have been very supportive in helping her manage her workload”. The claimant went on sick leave two working days later and brought forward the start of her maternity leave. During her maternity leave, the claimant asked for keeping in touch days. However, there was again a lack of a response directly to the claimant. The manager just sent an email to the respondent’s payroll team saying it was approved. The claimant’s return from maternity leave was also not handled well and certain communication was again lacking. Around a month after her return from maternity leave, the claimant was certified as unfit for work with postnatal depression and ultimately resigned around six weeks later.
The claimant brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal and pregnancy discrimination. Following receipt of the claimant’s email, the ET held that the respondent should have considered altering the claimant’s working conditions, hours of work, redeployed the claimant to a suitable alternative role, or failing that, suspend her on full pay. It found that there was an “obvious and pressing need” for the respondent had to complete a risk assessment. However, the respondent failed to do any of this. The ET held that the internal email sent by the respondent’s manager was stereotyping the claimant as an “emotional, hormonal pregnant woman” and that the description of the claimant was dismissive and belittling. The inference was that the claimant wasn’t fully in control of her emotions because of the pregnancy. The ET found that the lack of an adequate response to the claimant’s email and the failure to ensure that a risk assessment was undertaken was because of the claimant’s pregnancy.
| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward | December 2024 - January 2025 | Issue 106 37
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker