On 7th January 2022 the judgement was made, at employment tribunal, that Mrs L Duffy was discriminated against due to her pregnancy. Mrs L Duffy successfully sued the Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust due to comments made by her colleagues and manager regarding her pregnancy and future plans.
Mrs L Duffy claimed for Pregnancy and Maternity Discrimination in which case she succeeded. She also claimed for Direct Sex Discrimination, Harassment and Unlawful Deductions however, she was unsuccessful in these areas.
Mrs Duffy had been employed by the Respondent (Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust) since 8 September 2008. In 2019 she was working as a PA for Mrs Saunders, on a Band 4. In June of 2019, Mrs Duffy told Ms Saunders that she was pregnant. She asked for this to be kept private. Mrs Duffy’s health meant that her pregnancy was high risk, and she was awaiting the 3-month scan, at which point she would know more about what was likely to happen.
At about this time, some of the Claimant’s other colleagues also found out about her pregnancy (this information did not come from Ms Saunders, therefore there was no breach in confidentiality). The colleagues that found out included Ms Cleasby, a fellow PA, who was a Band 5 employee and had recently acted up to a Band 6. Mrs Duffy and Ms Cleasby had been on good terms however, the relationship deteriorated following events early in 2019.
In about July 2019, a restructure was announced affecting the area in which the Mrs Duffy and Ms Cleasby worked.
At the beginning of August 2019, Ms Liveras (Managing Director) and Ms Saunders, separately, told Mrs Duffy about the restructure and that it was planned to job match her current position to one of the new Band 5 roles. This was an informal way of proceeding. Although Ms Saunders said this conversation involved her “advising Mrs Duffy that she would be given the opportunity to come forward for the new Band 5 post but that we would have to ensure that the correct processes were followed” it was found that description was not accurate and involved a degree of hindsight. The conversation was rather as Mrs Duffy set out, which was to say she was told her transition to Band 5 would be by way of job matching and an informal interview.
Ms Cleasby found out about this and wasn’t pleased as, she believed it was unfair Mrs Duffy was job matched when she herself had been led to believe she would have to apply for the Band 6 post that was available, even though she had been working at this level previously. This led to Ms Cleasby making comments such as: “have you told Jackie that you won’t be coming back after maternity?”; other people would have their “jobs cut” and “staff weren’t happy”; “you are naive to think you are getting Band 5”; “you planned your pregnancy well”; “don’t be so sure of yourself’; “you have nothing in writing”; “don’t count your blessings”.
Ms Cleasby also complained to Mr Beaton who was leading on the restructure. This led to Mr Beaton saying, in a meeting, that he wanted to discuss Ms Cleasbys ‘future plans’ and at the same time nodded toward her stomach.
The Judge ruled that Mr Beaton had made a ‘clumsy enquiry’ and Mrs Duffy was ‘right to think it was inappropriate’. Along with two of the comments made by Ms Cleasby (“have you told Jackie that you won’t be coming back after maternity?” and “you planned your pregnancy well”), the decision was made that these three acts were unfavourable treatment due to Mrs Duffy being pregnant; therefore, resulting in pregnancy discrimination.
If you have any questions in relation to managing your restructure or redundancy process, please get in touch with the team on 01924 827869 or contact us here.
