Helen Ballerino v The Racecourse Association Ltd
[2024] EAT 98
Blackdown Hill Management Limited & Anor v Anastasia Tuchkova
9 November 2023
[2023] EAT 156
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A mom was fired after maternity leave, and a court initially said the company discriminated against her. But a higher court disagreed, saying the lower court made a mistake in deciding this. So, a new court will now decide if the mom was discriminated against.
Key Facts
- •Anastasia Tuchkova (Claimant) was dismissed from Blackdown Hill Management Limited (Respondent) for redundancy.
- •Tuchkova was on maternity leave from March 1, 2017, to March 1, 2018.
- •Upon her return, Tuchkova found her email accounts inaccessible, her laptop wiped, and was informed there was no work for her.
- •Tuchkova brought claims for unfair dismissal, maternity discrimination, and direct sex discrimination.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) found the dismissal unfair but for a fair reason of redundancy, upholding some discrimination claims.
Legal Principles
Unfair Dismissal
Employment Rights Act 1996, section 98(4)
Maternity Discrimination
Equality Act 2010, section 18(4)
Direct Sex Discrimination
Equality Act 2010, section 13
Causation in Discrimination Claims
Indigo Design Build and Management Limited and Bank v Martinez [UKEAT/0020/14]
Pool of One for Redundancy
Wrexham Golf Club v Ingham UKEAT/0190/12, Mogane v Bradford Teaching Hospitals [2022] EAT 139, Teixeira v Zaika Restaurant [2022] EAT 171
Polkey Deduction
Outcomes
Unfair dismissal claim upheld.
Respondent failed to conduct a fair redundancy consultation and selection process; grievance process was not handled fairly.
Maternity discrimination and direct sex discrimination claims partially upheld.
Respondent's treatment of claimant upon her return from maternity leave was unfavourable because she had taken maternity leave. Specific issues included failure to provide a suitable role, lack of work access, and dismissive behaviour. However, the EAT overturned this due to incorrect application of the legal test for causation.
EAT overturned the ET's decision on discrimination claims.
The ET failed to apply the correct 'because of' causation test for discrimination, instead applying a 'related to' test. The EAT found the ET's reasoning inadequate and insufficiently explained.
The discrimination claims were remitted to a different Employment Tribunal for reconsideration.
The significant flaws and inadequate reasoning in the ET's decision necessitates a fresh assessment by a new panel.