EAT Maternity Rights and Parental Leave
Sex discrimination
Unfair dismissal
The Tribunal erred in concluding there was a discriminatory dismissal on the grounds that the Claimant had taken maternity leave, contrary to section 3A of the SDA, section 99 of the 1996 Act and paragraph 20 of MAPLE, when in the light of the Tribunal’s own findings it either did decide or was bound to have decided that there was a dismissal for redundancy, so that paragraph 20(2) not paragraph 20(1) of MAPLE applied, and the Tribunal failed to ask or answer the correct questions under that sub-paragraph. The dismissal for redundancy was plainly in connection with the taking of maternity leave, in circumstances in which it was accepted and found that the redundancy/lack of necessity for employing four rather than three people in the relevant department became apparent while the Claimant was absent on maternity leave, but the Tribunal did not consider (i) whether paragraph 20(2)(b) applied or (ii) whether the Claimant was bound/likely to have been dismissed in any event (Polkey). Remitted to the ET for that purpose, to take place at the same time as the (already adjourned) remedies hearing, if the latter should arise in the light of the Tribunal’s further conclusion on liability/loss.
Judges:
Burton J
Citations:
[2012] UKEAT 0213 – 12 – 3110
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.467152
