K Ciochon v Mark Kempe t/a Neville Arms & Neville Arms Inn
[2024] EAT 48
Alcedo Orange Limited v G Ferridge-Gunn
30 March 2023
[2023] EAT 78
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A pregnant woman was fired shortly after telling her boss. A judge said the first trial didn't figure out who actually made the decision to fire her or if they did it *because* she was pregnant. So, they're having another trial to get it right this time.
Key Facts
- •Mrs. Ferridge-Gunn (claimant) was dismissed eight days after informing her employer, Alcedo Orange Ltd (appellant), of her pregnancy.
- •The appellant's case was that the dismissal was due to the claimant's unsatisfactory performance and attitude.
- •The claimant argued that her dismissal was due to pregnancy discrimination.
- •The employment tribunal found in favor of the claimant on the pregnancy discrimination claim but not on the automatic unfair dismissal claim.
- •The tribunal did not explicitly identify the decision-maker(s) in the dismissal.
- •The tribunal considered comments made by Ms. Caunt (Registered Manager) as background, not freestanding acts of discrimination.
- •Ms. Caunt's comments included questioning the claimant's illness and its contagiousness and a lack of sympathy towards the claimant's pregnancy.
- •The appeal focused on whether the employment tribunal properly applied the principles in *Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd* regarding decision-makers and discriminatory motivation.
Legal Principles
In pregnancy discrimination claims, the tribunal must determine who made the decision to dismiss and whether their pregnancy was a material factor in that decision.
Equality Act 2010 (EQA), sections 18 and 39
The 'composite approach,' where the reasoning of multiple individuals is combined to assess discriminatory motivation, is rejected. Only the decision-maker's discriminatory motivation is relevant unless there is joint decision-making or inherently discriminatory treatment.
*Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd* [2015] ICR 1010
In 'tainted information' cases (where an innocent decision-maker relies on discriminatory information from another), the discrimination lies in supplying the tainted information, not in acting upon it.
*Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd* [2015] ICR 1010
Employment tribunals must ensure a fair hearing and that parties are on an equal footing, particularly when dealing with litigants in person.
Overriding objective in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and Employment Tribunal rules
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The employment tribunal's decision was unsafe because it failed to apply the principles in *Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd*, not clearly determining who made the decision to dismiss and whether their motivation was influenced by the claimant's pregnancy.
The pregnancy discrimination claim was remitted to the same employment tribunal for redetermination.
The tribunal's failure to consider *Reynolds* meant the decision was not sufficiently clear to determine whether Mr. Boardman (managing director) discriminated against the claimant. The redetermination will address this, considering whether the dismissal was a sole decision influenced by discriminatory information or a joint decision involving discriminatory motivation.