In order to establish that a dismissal was for a pregnancy related reason, an employee must prove that the actual decision maker decided to dismiss for a pregnancy related reason. If the decision maker is influenced by another employee, who is motivated to act in a discriminatory manner, that is not sufficient.
In summary, the Claimant contended that she was employed for one month, her probationary period was 12 weeks, and that when she announced she was pregnant on 19 February 2020 she was dismissed eight days later on 27 February 2020, having taken two days’ leave because of morning sickness on 24 and 25 February 2020. The respondent’s case was that they dismissed the claimant because they were dissatisfied with her performance and that she did not meet the targets set for her. Furthermore, that the claimant was not receptive to advice and training and was not a good ‘fit’ for the respondent company. There is no dispute that the claimant was pregnant at the time of the dismissal, and that she later gave birth to a baby girl on 14 October 2020.
As HHJ James Tayler, sitting in the EAT, stated at the start of his Judgment:-
This case involves a scenario that many employment lawyers will have encountered at some point in their careers. A woman tells her employer the good news that she is pregnant. A few days later she is told the bad news that she no longer has a job. But one must be careful to avoid the fallacy commonly known by its Latin tag; post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because one thing follows another, it does not necessarily mean that the latter was caused by the former. That said, the fact that a woman is dismissed shortly after telling her employer that she is pregnant often provides compelling support for an inference of discrimination to be drawn.
The Employment Tribunal upheld a claim of pregnancy discrimination finding that the Managing Director who decided to dismiss was influenced by the line manager.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the line manger’s influence on the decision to dismiss was not sufficient to show that the dismissal was for a pregnancy related reason. The case was referred back to the Employment Tribunal as the case required an analysis of whether the decision was actually made jointly by the line manager and Managing Director which would be discriminatory, or solely by the Managing Director, even if influenced by the line manager, which would not.
Source: Alcedo_Orange_Ltd_v_Mrs_G_Ferridge-Gunn__2023__EAT_78.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)
James Williams
