Alcedo Orange Limited v G Ferridge-Gunn
[2023] EAT 78
K Ciochon v Mark Kempe t/a Neville Arms & Neville Arms Inn
27 March 2024
[2024] EAT 48
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A pregnant woman was made redundant shortly after telling her boss she was pregnant. The first court didn't properly consider if her pregnancy was a factor in her redundancy. The appeal court sent the case back to a new court to be decided fairly, as the first court made serious mistakes.
Key Facts
- •Ms Ciochon was employed by Mr Kempe and dismissed on February 1, 2019.
- •Ms Ciochon informed Mr Kempe of her pregnancy on January 4, 2019.
- •Ms Ciochon was dismissed allegedly due to redundancy following a downturn in business.
- •The redundancy process involved a pool of only two employees, with inadequate consultation.
- •The Employment Tribunal found that Ms Ciochon was not dismissed due to pregnancy or nationality.
- •The appeal focused on whether the Tribunal erred in its assessment of the redundancy process and potential inference of pregnancy discrimination.
Legal Principles
Pregnancy discrimination under Section 18 of the Equality Act 2010.
Equality Act 2010
Burden of proof in discrimination claims, as outlined in Igen & Ors v Wong [2005] ICR 931 and subsequent cases.
Igen & Ors v Wong [2005] ICR 931, Field v Steve Pye and Co & Ors [2022] EAT 68, Hewage v Grampian Health Board [2012] UKSC 37
Automatically unfair dismissal for pregnancy-related reasons under Section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Regulation 20 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999.
Employment Rights Act 1996, Regulation 20 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999
The significance of unreasonable treatment in discrimination claims, as discussed in Bahl v Law Society [2003] IRLR 640 and Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Griffiths-Henry [2006] IRLR 865.
Bahl v Law Society [2003] IRLR 640, Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Griffiths-Henry [2006] IRLR 865
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly consider whether the claimant's pregnancy was a factor in her selection for redundancy and by improperly considering the respondent's explanation at the first stage of the burden of proof analysis.
Case remitted for redetermination by a different Employment Tribunal.
The errors in the original judgment were fundamental, and remitting to the same Tribunal would not be efficient and could raise concerns of bias.