Mrs K Cookson v Murray Smith LLP and others: 2402498/2019
JUDGMENT
The complaint of direct sex discrimination is dismissed following a withdrawal by the claimant. The claimant’s remaining claims will proceed to hearing on 13 January – 17 January 2020. _____________________________ Employment Judge Horne 8 July 2019 _____________________________ JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 19 July 2019 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Case no. 2402498/2019 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mrs K Cookson Respondents: Murray Smith LLP Dr Michael Gerrard Benson[3]Mr Steven Alan Williams HELD AT: Liverpool ON: 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 January 2020 BEFORE: Employment Judge Horne MEMBERS: Ms F Crane Mrs J E Williams REPRESENTATION: Claimant: Respondents: Mr A Johnston, counsel Mrs J Ferrario, counsel[1]The claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed.[2]It is just and equitable to reduce the claimant’s basic award by one-third on the ground of her contributory conduct.[3]The claimant’s compensatory award is assessed on the basis that, had Murray Smith LLP not fundamentally breached the claimant’s contract: Case no. 2402498/2019 2 There is an 80% chance that the claimant’s employment would have terminated by resignation on or before 1 February 2019; and 3.1. There is a corresponding 20% chance that the claimant’s employment would not have terminated and that the claimant would have returned to work from maternity leave and continued to be employed by the respondent.[4]It is not just and equitable to make any further reduction to the claimant’s compensatory award on the ground of contributory conduct.[5]Having regard to these findings, Murray Smith LLP is ordered to pay the claimant a basic award of £500.00 and a compensatory award of £1,467.80.[6]Murray Smith LLP breached the claimant’s contract by wrongfully constructively dismissing her without notice, and is ordered to pay her damages in the agreed sum of £123.75.[7]This paragraph relates to the allegations of maternity discrimination appearing at paragraphs 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7 of the List of Issues. Those allegations are dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant.[8]In all other alleged respects, the respondents did not discriminate against the claimant because of maternity.[9]This paragraph relates to the allegations of victimisation appearing at paragraphs 8.1, 8.2, 8.7, 8.8, 8.10, 8.13, 8.14, 8.15, 8.16 and 8.17 of the List of Issues. Those allegations are dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant.[10]In all other alleged respects, the respondents did not victimise the claimant.