Mrs Z McGill v Stay with Us MPB Ltd: 3314488/2023 Mrs Z McGill v Stay with Us MPB Ltd: 3314488/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 3314488/2023

Between

Mrs Z McGillClaimant

Stay with Us MPB Ltd Final HearingRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Boyes

Mr R. Heerin - HR consultant for respondent

Date 17 September 2025

JUDGMENT

[2]The Claimant’s pregnancy discrimination claim under section 18(2)(a) of the Equality Act 2010 is not well founded and is dismissed. The Claimant’s pregnancy discrimination claim under section 18(2)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 is not well founded and is dismissed.

REASONS

[1]I apologise to the parties for the delay in providing this Judgment and Reasons, which has been due to health reasons. I am extremely sorry for any concern and inconvenience that this may have caused the parties. The delay is entirely mine not that of the other Members of the Tribunal.

[2]The Claimant claims that she was discriminated against on the grounds of pregnancy. The Respondent defends all aspects of the claim.

[3]Acas early conciliation took place between 8 December 2023 and 11 December 2023. The claim form (ET1) was lodged with Tribunal on the 12 December 2023. The Respondent filed a response to the claim (ET3). The proceedings

[4]There was a preliminary hearing for case management on the 8 October 2024. Documents

[5]The Tribunal had before it an electronic bundle of 173 pages (including the index). It states in the index that the bundle is 249 pages. However, the handwritten numbering goes awry from page 58 [handwritten] / electronic (PDF) 62. Numbers in square brackets in these reasons refer to the electronic page numbers from the trial bundle as viewed in PDF rather than the page numbers handwritten in the bundle. As some pages appeared to be missing from the electronic bundle, the Tribunal checked to ensure that all of the evidence that the parties wished the Tribunal to take into account was included within the electronic version that the Tribunal had been provided with. The parties confirmed that all of the relevant evidence was contained in that bundle.

[6]The bundle includes the Claimant’s and Jane Quaintrell’s witness statements. Chris McGill’s witness statement was provided in the form of a separate email. The Claimant has provided a document referred to as a Personal Impact Statement by email and a Schedule of loss. We were provided with the December 2023 wage slip which was not in the bundle. The Tribunal also had the parties’ written closing submissions.

[7]At the Tribunal’s request, a copy of the draft unexecuted terms and conditions of employment that the Respondent had prepared but not yet issued to the Claimant, was disclosed during the course of the hearing. We asked that this document be disclosed by the Respondent because we considered that it was necessary in the interests of fairness to the Claimant, who has not previously seen the document. In particular, this was in case it disclosed a different position with regard to sick pay than asserted by the Respondent. Final hearing

[8]Certain documents that referred to settlement negotiations and without prejudice communications were contained in the bundle [pages 16, 17, 18 and 172]. The Tribunal could not have regard to these documents. The parties were informed that the parts of those documents that referred to negotiations were not admissible and that they were not to be referred to in evidence.

[9]Mr Heering, who represented the Respondent at the hearing, provided HR support to the Respondent prior to the Claimant’s resignation. At the start of the hearing we asked him whether he was proposing that he give evidence. He confirmed that he was not a witness for the Respondent.

[10]The Claimant gave oral evidence. She adopted her witness statement. The Tribunal asked the Claimant further questions in order to expand upon and clarify her evidence in chief. She was cross examined by the Respondent and asked further questions by the Tribunal.

[11]The Claimant called Chris McGill, her husband, as a witness. He had provided a short statement by email. The Tribunal ask him some further questions to clarify his evidence in chief. He was cross examined by the Respondent.

[12]The Respondent called Jane Quaintrell, a Director, as a witness. She adopted her witness statement. She was cross examined by the Claimant and asked questions by the Tribunal in order to clarify her evidence.

[13]Both parties provided written closing submissions. The Tribunal sought clarification relating to certain issues in those written submissions. The parties were given the opportunity to make further oral submissions but relied on their written submissions.

[14]We reserved Judgment. Issues to be determined

[15]The List of Issues were identified and agreed at the case management hearing on 8 October 2024. The List of Issues was reviewed at the commencement of the final hearing and were added to so as to incorporate all of the complaints that were in the original claim form but not previously included in the List of Issues. The final agreed version is below.

[16]The Claimant’s complains that she was treated unfavourably under section18(2)(a) Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”) because of her pregnancy in that the Respondent: 16.1. Picked faults with her work which were unjustified; 16.2. Removed her without her consent from the work WhatsApp chats; 16.3. Discussed her pregnancy and pregnancy related illness with her colleagues; 16.4. Breached health and safety provisions; 16.5. Withheld a company vehicle to which she was entitled under the terms of her contract of employment.

[17]The Claimant also complains that she was discriminated against on grounds of pregnancy and maternity under section 18(2)(b), in that, whilst off sick for illness suffered by her as a result of the pregnancy, the Respondent did not pay her the requisite pay to which she was entitled in those circumstances.

[18]There is a dispute as to the start date of the Claimant’s employment which turns on her employment status prior to the 6 November 2023.

Findings of Fact

[19]Where there is no dispute between the parties as to a particular fact, our findings of fact are recorded below without any further explanation. Where the facts are not agreed by both parties, we have explained why we prefer one party’s account over the other. Where the facts are not clear, we have explained why we have made the finding of fact concerned.

[20]Our findings of fact are as follows: The Respondent

[21]The Respondent’s business is a serviced accommodation management company which was incorporated in March 2023.

[22]The Respondent had, at the relevant times two Directors, Jane Quaintrell and Ryan Cressfield. Neither drew at salary from that business. The Tribunal accepted Jane Quaintrell’s oral evidence that the Claimant was, at the relevant time, the Respondent’s first employee and its only employee, the other workers all being self-employed. The Claimant

[23]The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as housekeeping supervisor and maintenance coordinator.

[24]The Claimant was employed to work 40 hours per week. Her salary was £22,000 per annum and was to rise to £25,000 subject to completion of a three month probationary period. She claims that she was entitled to a company van as part of her terms of employment but this was delayed so she was made to use her own van. Chronology of events

[25]There is a dispute as to when the Claimant’s employment began. The Claimant stated in her claim form that it started on the 6 October 2023 and ended on 7 December 2023. In her further particulars of the 6 March 2024, she stated that her employment started around 16 October 2023, possibly before. She asserts that she was then asked to invoice for her work on 24 October 2023, as she had not been provided with a written contract. The Respondent’s position is that her employment commenced on 6 November 2023 and ended on 8 December 2023 and that work that the Claimant undertook prior to 6 November 2023 was on a self-employed basis.

[26]The post was advertised online and the Claimant applied via a job site in late September or early October 2023. The job advert was silent as to sick pay.

[27]The Claimant was interviewed for the role at the beginning of October 2023. She was informed that she would be provided with a company vehicle and so she would not have to use her own vehicle. There was no discussion at the interview specifically about when the company vehicle would be available, she was just told that it would be ready when she started. She was told that as the role was salaried if she needed to be off one week, she could make up the extra hours in following weeks.

[28]We asked the Claimant if there was any discussion at interview about whether she would be paid her salary if she was off sick. The Claimant’s evidence was that she was told that her salary would be same if she was off for any reason such as if she was sick or because of children. However, there were also times when she would also have to work over the contracted hours.

[29]Jane Quaintrell’s live evidence was that she definitely did not say to the Claimant that she would be paid full pay if she was off work sick.

[30]We do not find that the Claimant’s evidence of what was said at interview demonstrated that she was specifically told that she would be paid her full salary if she was off sick. Having considered the Claimant’s oral evidence, which we found quite general in nature, we find that it more likely that what she was informed, in terms, was that as she was to be paid a salary (rather than an hourly rate there was flexibility on both sides as to the hours she worked each week and that if she worked a little less one week for personal reasons for example, that she could make up the time in the following weeks. We did not find her evidence disclosed that she was explicitly told that she would be paid a full salary if she had a period of sick leave. We formed the view that whilst there was a discussion about flexibility in terms of hours on a week by week basis, this was in a very general pre-appointment discussion about the role. It did not amount to an agreement that she would be paid her salary if on sick leave.

[31]The Claimant was verbally offered the role shortly after her interview.

[32]In her witness statement, the Claimant stated she remembers Jane Quaintrell asking her to start straight away after the interview as they were struggling for staff. She also states that she recollects that she was required to work on 16 and 17 October 2023 as this was the anniversary of when her son was attacked and then died from his injuries and she remembers going to his grave at that time. We found the Appellant’s evidence in this respect to be very specific and compelling. In oral evidence, the Claimant explained that 6 November had been identified as a start date as it was half term in October and she had some holiday booked. However, she did, in fact, undertake work for the business on 13 and 14 October 2023 and 16 and 17 October 2023.

[33]The Claimant received an offer letter dated 18 October 2023. It is stated in that letter that “The other terms and conditions of employment are set out in your Terms and Conditions of Employment. The Terms and Conditions of Employment, along with this Offer Letter, will form your contract of employment.” It is recorded that it was understood that she was free to commence employment on 6 November 2023.

[34]Both parties agree that the Claimant was never actually issued with written terms and conditions of employment. The unexecuted terms and conditions disclosed in these proceedings at the Tribunal’s request, state the following regarding absence from work: “Any payments due under Statutory Sick Pay will be made in accordance with current statutory guidelines. The Employer reserves the absolute right to pay Company Sick Pay depending on the circumstances.”

[35]The Claimant provided invoices to the Respondent dated 24 October 2023 (24.2 hours at £15 per hour totalling £363), 27 October 2023 (17 hours at £15 per hour totalling £255) and 2 November 2023 (14 hours at £15 per hour totalling £210). The item billed is “labour only (cleaning services)”. The invoices are from a business called Cut Above Tiling, which is the Claimant’s husband’s business.

[36]The Claimant says in her statement that Jane Quaintrell’s reason for wanting to pay her as a sub-contractor was that she could not get HR to draw up her contract in time. When she asked Jane Quaintrell about her pay, she asked the Claimant if she could get her husband, who was self employed, to invoice so she could put it through faster, as HR had still not done the requested paperwork. We accept the Claimant’s evidence in this respect which was specific and detailed.

[37]An induction form was completed with the Claimant on the 6 November 2023 and signed by the Claimant and Jane Quaintrell on that date. A form entitled Issue of Personal Protective Equipment Record signed by Jane Quaintrell on 6 November 2023 specifies the Claimant’s start date as 6 November 2023. In live evidence, Jane Quaintrell stated that she was sent the various induction documents, including the terms and conditions of employment by Rob Heerin, but she must have forgotten to print that particular document off.

[38]It is not in dispute that the Claimant undertook work for the Respondent in October 2023. The issue is what her employment status was prior to 6 November 2023 after which point it is not in dispute that she was an employee.

[39]Having weighed all of the evidence before us in the round, we formed the view that the Claimant’s employment began on 13 October 2023, not 6 November 2023 as claimed by the Respondent.

[40]In reaching this conclusion we have borne in mind that the Claimant was interviewed for an employed role in early October 2023, verbally offered that employment shortly thereafter and then sent an offer letter dated 18 October 2023. The Claimant’s evidence was that she considered herself to be an employee but then was asked to provide invoices. We could see no material difference in the work that she was doing before and after 6 November 2023. There was no contract for services agreement.

[41]The only factor pointing to self employment is the manner in which the Claimant was paid prior to 6 November 2023. We considered that the Claimant was interviewed in connection with an employed salaried role before she started working, was offered and accepted employment and the written offer of employment was sent to her shortly after she in fact started working.

[42]Given the fact that the Claimant had not received her written terms and conditions of employment even at the point that she resigned, we formed the view that the Respondent was disorganised in respect of its administrative paperwork. We found that reason that the Claimant was asked to invoice the Respondent was because it provided a convenient way to make payment to the Claimant whilst the administrative relating to her employment was sorted out. Further, it had initially been anticipated that the Claimant would start work on the 6 November, as half term was coming up, but those plans changed, which led to the Claimant starting work at an earlier date. There was no apparent difference in the way in which the Claimant carried out that initial period of work that would point to a contract for services rather than a contract of service. We therefore find as a fact that the Claimant was an employee from the 13 October 2023.

[43]In oral evidence, the Claimant stated that man who was selling the vehicle that she was to use for her role had come into office a few times to say that it was almost ready. She stated that she thought that this was when she returned from her holiday but she said that she could not be certain of the dates. There is an email from Agility Fleet dated 8 April 2024. [96] This confirms that on 2 November 2023, the Respondent ordered a lease vehicle. We accept that this was the vehicle that was to be used by the Claimant in her role and this was the date on which it was requisitioned by the Respondent.

[44]On 24 November 2023, the Claimant removed herself from the WhatsApp Lizzi cleaning group [61]. Jane Quaintrell’s evidence is that there was no reason given for this removal. The Claimant says in her witness statement that she was asked by Jane Quaintrell to do so and that this was the start of being treated unfairly. This complaint of unfairness was prior to the date on which the Claimant notified the Respondent that she was pregnant.

[45]On Tuesday 28 November 2023, the Claimant worked at a property from approximately 9am to 10.30am. Jane Quaintrell was also present at that property. At approximately 10.30am the Claimant went to a second location to continue working.

[46]At approximately 11am, the Claimant messaged Jane Quaintrell to say the doctor had just called as she had some blood tests and told her she was pregnant. The message has not been provided. The Respondent states that it cannot provide this message (and certain other ones) as the Claimant’s WhatsApp messages were set to automatically disappear at this point. The Claimant challenges the Respondent’s inability to disclose certain messages on the basis that they were ‘disappearing’ ones. We find that the Claimant had, as of 23 October 2023, a default timer set up on WhatsApp because a screenshot from WhatsApp has been provided [173] which confirms that new messages would disappear from her account after 24 hours. In any event, the Claimant’s own evidence is that she informed Jane Quaintrell by message and by telephone that she was pregnant. Therefore, we find as a fact that the Claimant informed Jane Quaintrell by message on the morning of the 28 November 2023 that she was pregnant. We also accept that there was a telephone call that morning in which the Claimant’s pregnancy was referred to. It is not clear on the evidence before us whether that initial telephone call occurred before or after the WhatsApp message.

[47]On the same morning, Jane Quaintrell contacted the Respondent’s HR consultant, Rob Heerin, who advised that a risk assessment should be done at the earliest opportunity. At 12.08pm on the same day he sent Jane Quaintrell a blank pregnancy risk assessment form [57].

[48]There are disputes of fact regarding several aspects of events on the 28 November 2023. In particular there is a dispute as to whether or not the Claimant told Jane Quaintrell that she was bleeding and in pain during the course of the working day and whether, during the initial telephone call in which the Claimant informed her that she was pregnant, Jane Quaintrell said “well it’s not the end of the world I suppose” or words to that effect.

[49]In order to make findings of fact about these two material issues, we assessed the entirety of the evidence before us. This included the written messages exchanged between the Claimant and Jane Quaintrell on that day and the written and live witness evidence that we had before us. As there was a disagreement as to what was said, we were required to assess the reliability of the witness evidence in so far as it was material to the issues in dispute.

[50]Both in her witness statement, and in live evidence, the Claimant said that she struggles with her memory. She also refers to having PTSD. We did, in some respects, find her evidence as to what happened on the 28 November 2023 to be lacking in clarity and detail and unclear as to the order in which events happened during the day and at what time. In addition, we noted that the Claimant mentioned, on several occasions, that it was an extremely emotionally challenging day for her and that she felt emotionally overwhelmed. At various points during the course of the hearing, the Tribunal provided the Claimant with the opportunity to expand upon and clarify certain aspects of her evidence but in certain key respects her evidence remained vague with little in the way of further detail. When assessing the reliability of her evidence, we also had regard to the conflict between the Claimant’s evidence and her husband’s evidence relating to what was said on the morning of the 29 November 2023 [see below].

[51]In contrast, we found Jane Quaintrell’s evidence to be clear and internally and externally consistent as to what was said and at what time. We accept her evidence that in the earlier part of the day the Claimant appeared in good health and worked well. We also found her account to be in keeping with the tone and content of the WhatsApp messages exchanged between Jane Quaintrell and the Claimant on that day and shortly afterwards.

[52]Whilst it is not, in any way, a criticism of the Claimant, we did not find her evidence of what exactly happened and what was said on the 28 November 2023 to be entirely reliable. We were not satisfied that her recollection was as clear or chronologically accurate as Jane Quaintrell’s recollection of what occurred and, in so far as the evidence conflicts, we found Jane Quaintrell’s evidence to be more reliable.

[53]However, the Claimant has consistently stated that Jane Quaintrell said “well it’s not the end of the world I suppose” or words to that effect during the telephone call in which the Claimant told her that she was pregnant. Having assessed the evidence before us we accept that Jane Quaintrell did say this or words to that effect. However, we did not have before us a transcript of that telephone call and neither witness provided a detailed account of exactly how the conversation unfolded. We are therefore not able to make any further detailed findings as to the context in which this comment was made.

[54]In respect of whether or not the Claimant told the Jane Quaintrell that she was unwell, bleeding and in pain, on the evidence before us, we find that the Claimant did not disclose any such issues during the course of the working day on 28 November 2023. In reaching that conclusion we took into account that the Claimant was adamant that she had done so. However, for reasons that we have provided above, we did not find her recall of events on that day reliable and we found Jane Quaintrell’s account of events on that day more reliable.

[55]In reaching that conclusion we have also had regard to the promptness with which Jane Quaintrell sought HR advice, and made arrangements for a pregnancy risk assessment to be undertaken, on finding out that the Claimant was pregnant. Taking into account this prompt action, we accept her evidence as we formed the view that had the Claimant told her that she was bleeding or in pain during the course of the working day she would have suggested that she obtain medical advice and/or not continue to work that day. We do not accept that she would simply have insisted that the Claimant carry on working regardless if she had been aware that the Claimant was in pain and bleeding.

[56]We also took into account that the first reference in any message from the Claimant to being unwell occurred on the evening of 28 October at 9pm in which the Claimant says that she was having a “slight bleed tonight so I am laid up” [see further below]. When assessed alongside the other evidence before us, we considered that this did not read as though the Claimant had been having a bleed all day or that she had previously informed Jane Quaintrell that she was unwell or bleeding during the course of the day. We also noted that the Claimant had sent other messages during the course of the working day but there is no reference in them to the Claimant being unwell, in pain or bleeding.

[57]Returning to the chronology of events on 28 November 2023, the Claimant sent a message to Jane Quaintrell informing her that Leslie was dropping “scourers and cleaning stuff off”. The Respondent replied by stating that there was no need Leslie to do this and that she would bring some.

[58]Jane Quaintrell later visited the Claimant on site. During the course of this visit she looked around the property.

[59]The Claimant asserts that Jane Quaintrell picked faults with her work which were unjustified. Jane Quaintrell‘s evidence was that when looking around the property, she noticed hair in the shower. The Claimant acknowledged the fact it was there and said she would "go over it".

[60]At the hearing we asked the Claimant for more details about what Jane Quaintrell found fault with during her visit. She said that she was wiping her finger across everything, picking little faults and asking why she had not completed the cooker. However, she was not able to identify any other specific fault found by Jane Quaintrell. Instead she stated that she was picking fault with the entire apartment and said she was not happy with the standard. We found the Claimant’s evidence in respect of the faults she asserts Jane Quaintrell found with her work to be lacking in any detail. We found her evidence to be very general in nature. On the evidence before us, we were therefore not satisfied that any fault was identified other than the hairs in the shower.

[61]The Claimant left the second property at around 3.00pm and drove to another property to drop off a microwave prior to the guests 4.00pm arrival. She carried the old microwave down the stairs and the new microwave, which weighed 10.8kg [152], up three or four flights of stairs.

[62]The Claimant says that she told Jane Quaintrell that she did not feel able to carry the microwave and that she wanted to wait until her husband finished work so he could do it. She states that Jane Quaintrell told her that it could not wait and that she had to do it because the guests checked in at 4pm. Jane Quaintrell denies that this conversation took place and states that the Claimant had told her that she felt absolutely fine. She states that the microwave was not excessively heavy or bulky. She states that there was no discussion with the Claimant in which the Claimant asked that her husband carry the microwave up the stairs after he finished work.

[63]For reasons that we have provided above, we found Jane Quaintrell’s evidence more reliable. We find that she was not told that the Claimant’s husband was available to help in the evening. We accept that the Claimant phoned her husband to ask if he could help but not that there was any discussion with Jane Quaintrell about this.

[64]On the evening of 28 November 2023, the Respondent messaged the Claimant to confirm a 9.00am meeting to complete the pregnancy risk assessment. The Claimant messaged back at 9.00pm as follows "slight bleed tonight so I am laid up... the doctors will no doubt send me for a scan...having a test done due to giving off enzymes associated with bowel cancer… don’t think I will be in tomorrow you can take it off my pay though" [76].

[65]Jane Quaintrell messaged the Claimant at to say "I was sorry to hear this, your health needs to come first, thanks for letting me know. Let me know how you go tomorrow and when you are free for a chat" [78].

[66]The Claimant messaged Jane Quaintrell on 29 November 2023 at 5.29pm, "Hi Jane doctor has confirmed pregnancy but referred me to hospital due to the other issues. Very early days but the sickness and pain is unbearable they have given me medication and we’re [sic] going to sign me off however I will see how I am in a week. All I’m doing is sleeping. Not really a lot I can do other than rest…” [80].

[67]Jane Quaintrell replied "Thank you for letting me know. I hope you feel better soon. Can I pop by tomorrow to collect the cleaning equipment we need and the keys for Quincy House?” [80]. The Claimant replied with "Yes I’ll sort the stuff. I have appointment tomorrow early for a blood test but hubby will be in 8.30 he goes to work for 9. Or I can ask Lesley anne to drop off at Qunicy for you. Or Office. There not a lot too [sic] do just bits I didn’t finish when I had to shift the car…” [80].

[68]Jane Quaintrell visited the Claimant’s home address on the morning of the 29 November 2023 to pick up the equipment. The Claimant was attending a medical appointment at the time so the Claimant’s husband handed over the cleaning supplies. The Claimant says in her witness statement at paragraph 18 that Jane Quaintrell said to her husband “I hope she's ok however maybe she needs to quit work for a while”. However, in live evidence the Claimant’s husband said that he did not recall any such comment. We considered that if she had made such a comment to him first hand then he would have remembered it, particularly if he had then recounted that comment to the Claimant. In the circumstances we do not accept that Claimant’s evidence in this respect and we find that Jane Quaintrell did not say that maybe the Claimant needed to quit work for a while.

[69]On 29 November 2023, the company vehicle that was to be used by the Claimant was delivered to Screentech [96].

[70]The Claimant messaged the Respondent on 30 November 2023 at 10.05am stating "Hi Jane doctors [illegible] showing low iron and signs of infection in my bloods I had. As a result, he has recommended I am off during my first trimester to make sure I don’t overdo things at work. He has sent a sick note. What do I need to do with it?" In a further message the Claimant said “Just read it says to give you it let me know if I need to do anything x” [82]. The fitness for work certificate was attached. The version in the bundle is difficult to read. We understand that the certificate confirms that the Claimant was unfit for work until the 30 January 2024 because of pregnancy related illness and bereavement [82].

[71]Jane Quaintrell replied the same morning “OK thanks for sending it across, I’ll let you know if I need anything else” then later that day “Hi Please can you just confirm your bank details. Is it the account I had you cleaning products into?” The Claimant replied “Yes I think so.” Jane Quaintrell then messaged the Claimant stating “Shall I just transfer into that account or do you want to check?” then “Hi Zoe If you could confirm so we can pay you by the end of play today. Also we’ve been thinking, we don’t want you to have to think about work while you're off and worrying about anything, so we will remove you from the group chats and then add you again on your return to work.” The Claimant replied with a 'thumbs up' emoji then “Yes that's fine Jane. Thanks” [84].

[72]On 30 November 2023, the Claimant was removed from six WhatsApp groups (Chantal & Libby (cleaning), Eve (cleaning), Steph (cleaning) Lee & Adele (cleaning), Operations (cleaning & maintenance))

[73]The Claimant later messaged Jane Quaintrell “Hi Jane received my pay thanks is this including mileage? I also have a receipt. Can I also ask my current health is not discussed with others. I noticed Alyssa removing me from the group chat. I know you said you would remove me but noticed Alyssa had x” then “I am very unwell and have been referred to the neonatal unit I don’t want to be worrying about work colleagues knowing my buisness [sic] too. Hope you understand x”.

[74]Jane Quaintrell replied “Have you received the mail with your payslip on? It includes your miles. What receipt do you have? Just send me a photo of it. We would never discuss your personal business with any of our colleagues. Alyssa is admin on the what’s app groups so she would have to do it. I can’t” The Claimant replied “Ah it just stated Ryan, yourself and Alyssa had removed me from everything. I already felt bad having to tell you I was pregnant and then worse when my cleaning was not to standards. This has made me feel even worse.” Jane Quaintrell replied “I’m not very technical so not sure how it works other than admin which is Alyssa has to remove people from the group. Just take care of yourself, as I said before your health comes first.”

[75]The Claimant says in her witness statement at paragraph 25 that Jane Quaintrell would openly discuss her being off with some of the sub-contractors. In live evidence, she was asked how she was aware of this and she said that she just felt that they must have known. When asked if she knew this or if it was an assumption on her part, she replied that she did not know for certain but, it was not a nice feeling seeing colleagues removing her from the WhatsApp groups. She was asked what she meant when she said in her claim form that Jane Quaintrell discussed her pregnancy and pregnancy related illness with her colleagues. She referred to being removed from the WhatsApp group by a colleague and that there was a message saying that she was going to be off so tasks would need to be picked up.

[76]We find that the evidence does not show that the Claimant’s personal circumstances, pregnancy or health was discussed with any colleagues or subcontractors. We find that others were made aware that the Claimant was off work, as would be necessary to cover her work, but no personal or health related details were disclosed. Despite being given the opportunity to provide clarification, the Claimant was unable to provide any explanation as to how she had reached the conclusion that there was any such disclosure. Whilst a colleague did remove her from the various WhatsApp groups there is nothing in the evidence before us to suggest that that colleague was provided the reason why she was removing the Claimant from the groups.

[77]The Claimant messaged Jane Quaintrell on 1 December 2023 as follows “I didn’t know as it’s been 9 years since my last child and I worked for our own company but my doctor said my employer cannot deduct any sick days that were due to my pregnancy. Mileage I didn’t think would be deducted. I have a bill for my car wheel from the dip at Brooklyn street so canny steep To tax my mileage too as part of my earnings. After being cut from all the groups by Alyssa, yourself and Ryan I feel quite violated and isolated and it is making me feel I don't even want to return. I didn’t expect in a million years after losing Jack in the way we did that I would be going through this but I am and it cannot be helped” [88].

[78]Jane Quaintrell replied “Hi Zoe, I’ve sent your query regarding your play [sic] slip to the accounts, I’ll get back once they respond. I’ve also checked with our HR department and they have advised that pregnancy related sickness falls under SSP guidelines. I’ll send you a link they have sent me. I’m sorry you [sic] hear you damaged your car, you never mentioned it. I also checked with HR and we are not liable to cover this cost. Due to the nature of your sickness. We didn’t want to cause you any additional stress or anxiety which is why we took you out of the what’s app chats and I did advise you of this first for these reasons. We are happy to put you back in but request that you don’t conduct any activity whilst on sick leave. We will work with you and do everything possible to get you back to work as soon as you’re fit. If there is anything we can do please let us know” [90]. Jane Quaintrell sent the Claimant a link information on the Acas website about maternity leave and pay. [90]

[79]The Claimant messaged Jane Quaintrell on 1 December 2023 as follows “Hi jane the doctor said first 2 days were self-certified. I shouldn’t have had pay deducted for pregnancy related illness on a salary. Luckily Hubby has a good job. Can see why the cleans are mostly self employed probably works out better. Hope you all have a nice Xmas anyhow. Not sure how long I will be off but I have an early scan next week so hopefully find out about the bleedings. It maybe I look at working from home doing supervising & maintenance coordinating using Guesty if that would be possible we will see what the scan reveals though x” [90].

[80]On 1 December 2023 Jane Quaintrell messaged the Claimant about her payslip and confirmed that the Claimant was not taxed on mileage expenses. She stated “I hope the scan goes well, please keep me informed. We can discuss your role when you are well enough to return to work…” [91].

[81]On 8 December 2023 at 2.12.pm the Claimant messaged Jane Quaintrell as follows “Hi Jane, I have been asked for a full copy of my contract by citizens advice. They said I should get the same sick pay as other employees especially when it’s pregnancy related. I should get at least statutory…” At 2.13pm the Claimant sent a further message which read “I am very unwell and working alone carrying equipment has not been advised by my doctor and midwife.”

[82]At 3.07pm the Claimant messaged Jane Quaintrell “Hi Jane as my messages are being ignored and my pregnancy has clearly caused an issue within the company could you send me my p45. I am heartbroken after everything I have been through I am being treat in this way. I feel unsupported and my health is deteriorating I don’t need the stress I am being put under worrying about work and being paid. My health and baby is more important.”

[83]On 8 December 2023 at 3.49pm the Claimant sent an email to Jane Quaintrell stating that she was resigning. The email reads as follows: “I regret to inform you of my resignation as from today. My decision was not made lightly. I have felt alone and isolated from the company since informing yourselves of my pregnancy. From the day l informed Jane I felt she did not take it well due to the fact she immediately started picking faults with my work. I am so upset having to make this decision after putting my heart and soul into your company even using my own vehicle despite being told I would be able to use a company vehicle and working sometimes 6 days a week alone including every weekend. As you are aware I had a bleed early on in my pregnancy requiring rest in which my salary was docked for. Not only was this pregnancy a complete shock but a very emotional time for me due to my late son Jack being murdered 2 years prior. Despite knowing all this l was then isolated from all the group chats regarding work completely removed by you all. I feel like I have done something wrong. l have tried to communicate with Jane in regards to SSP which is supposed to be dealt with by my employer and I am just blanked. I feel no other option but to hand in my resignation for the good of my health. Can you please send me the full company address and my P45 as soon as possible.” [51]

[84]By email on 8 December 2023 at 5.55pm Jane Quaintrell replied as follows: “Firstly, I have not been ignoring your messages. I have been in a school nativity play and opened your first message whilst ensuring that my phone was on silent. It was my intention to respond when it was finished. I replied to your messages 2.5 hours after your initial message. I am sorry to hear that you are still very unwell and that you feel the need to resign from your position. If it is your wish to resign from your role, then I accept your email as your resignation. There are a number of inaccuracies with your messages and your email which I must try to correct. You have not been isolated since informing me that you are pregnant. I congratulated you as soon as you informed me and arranged for a risk assessment to be carried out at the earliest opportunity. This was due to completed the following day but you unfortunately suffered the bleed and have not returned to work since. On your first day of sickness, I messaged you to inform you that we didn't not want you to be concerned with work and that your health was the most important thing. In order for you to focus fully on your recovery, I temporarily removed you from the WhatsApp groups which involved day to day operations. You had already removed yourself from one of the groups anyway. You were however left in Guesty and were able to see all customer messages and bookings. Had it been my wish or intention to isolate you then I would have removed your access to that system too. It was never my intention to isolate you and hoped that you would return to work in the very near future. In respect of your pay, you do qualify for Statutory Sick Pay. The rules of SSP are that you do not receive any pay for the first three days and then following those three days you receive £109.40 per week for up to 28 weeks. Your next payslip will show your SSP payments along with any holidays that have been accrued up to and including today. You are receiving SSP in exactly the same way that other employees receive it and is in line with your contract of employment. You state that I started to pick faults at your work. This is not true. I merely pointed out that you had forgotten to clean a shower tray when cleaning a bathroom as it contained traces of hair. Everyone makes mistakes and this was not to pick fault. I agree that you had to use your own vehicle temporarily whilst conducting business operations. You were paid mileage for any business miles completed and if you have any additional expenses outstanding, please forward them and they shall be authorised and paid along with your final salary. The reason you were asked to use your own vehicle is due to the fact that we had to order a new vehicle and wait for it to be delivered. That vehicle has since arrived and is now being sign written so will be available once completed. I am sorry that you feel upset and fully sympathise with everything you have been through. No person should have to go through what you have previously been through. I wish you the best of luck with your pregnancy and for the future. If there is anything that the company or me personally can do to help in any way, please don't hesitate to ask.” [53 & 55]

[85]On 13 December 2023 the Claimant messaged Jane Quaintrell about her work email being de-activated as follows “What is this about? I need to access my payslips? I have had quite enough and have applied to tribunal on pregnancy and discrimination grounds. Absolutely uncalled for.” [143]

[86]Jane Quaintrell replied that as she no longer worked for the company her email access had been stopped. [143]

[87]The Claimant was paid Statutory Sick Pay for the time that she was off sick after three unpaid waiting days.

[88]On 21 December 2023, the Claimant was issued with her P45.

[89]On 21 December 2023, the Respondent was informed by Screentech that the company van that had been intended for the Claimant was ready. [94]

[90]The Claimant states that from when she was signed off sick Jane Quaintrell suggested to her on several occasions that she give up work. She states that there was a difference in how Jane Quaintrell communicated in messages and when she spoke to the Claimant. We did not find the Claimant’s evidence in this respect to be reliable. We found her evidence as to what was said and when to be vague and lacking in any real detail. In reaching that view we took into account the Claimant’s assertion that Jane Quaintrell had made such a comment to her husband, whereas he did not recall this. In the circumstances, we find that the Claimant has not shown that any such comments were made at any point by Jane Quaintrell. The Relevant Law Discrimination

The Relevant Law

[91]Discrimination by an employer because of pregnancy and maternity is prohibited by sections 18 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010.

[92]Section 18 (as in force at the relevant time and in so far as relevant) stated that: “(2) A person(a) (A) discriminates against a woman if, in the protected period in relation to a pregnancy of hers, A treats her unfavourably (a) because of the pregnancy, or

(b) because of illness suffered by her as a result of it.”

[93]The Equality and Human Rights Commission Employment Statutory Code of Practice (“the Code”) provides a detailed explanation and guide to the Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal must take into account any part of it that appears relevant to any questions arising in proceedings.

[94]The fact that a woman believes that she has been treated unfavourably because of pregnancy or maternity does not of itself establish that there has been unfavourable treatment, although her perception of the effect of treatment is likely to be relevant as to whether, objectively, that treatment was unfavourable.

[95]As per Anya v University of Oxford & Another

[2001] IRLR 377

, the Employment Tribunal should look beyond any act in question to the general background evidence in order to consider whether prohibited factors have played a part in the employer’s judgment. This is particularly so when establishing unconscious factors.

[96]In most cases where the conduct in question is not overtly related to a protected characteristic, the real question is the “reason why” the decision maker acted as he or she did. Answering that question involves consideration of the mental processes (whether conscious or subconscious) of the alleged discriminator to identify whether the protected characteristic had any material influence.

[97]Decisions are frequently reached for more than one reason. Provided the protected characteristic had a significant influence on the outcome, discrimination is made out. (Nagarajan v London Regional Transport

[1999] IRLR 572

, HL)

[98]Case law emphasises that very little discrimination today is overt or even deliberate. Individuals can even be unconsciously prejudiced.

[99]Pregnancy discrimination differs from the other forms of direct discrimination prohibited by the Equality Act in that it does not require a claimant to compare the way in which they were was treated to the way in which a person without their protected characteristic was or would have been treated. Instead, the claimant must show simply that she was treated unfavourably (because of her pregnancy).

[100]The consequences of the pregnancy for the employer are irrelevant in considering whether there had been pregnancy discrimination.

[101]The unfavourable treatment must be ‘because of’ the pregnancy. 102. ‘Unfavourable treatment’ as it relates to pregnancy discrimination is not defined in the Equality Act or elsewhere. However, the Code does provide examples at paragraphs 8.21 and 8.22 of such treatment. Burden of proof under the Equality Act 2010

[103]Section 136 Equality Act provides for a shifting burden of proof. It reads: "(2) If there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the court must hold that the contravention occurred. (3) This does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision."

[104]In Igen v Wong and Others

[2005] IRLR 258

, it was confirmed that the Employment Tribunal should go through a two-stage decision making process. At the first stage, it should decide if the claimant has established facts from which the Tribunal can reasonably conclude that there has been a contravention of the Act. If the claimant establishes those facts, the burden shifts to the respondent to show that there has been no contravention by, for example, identifying a different reason for the treatment. The Tribunal should decide if the respondent has provided an “adequate” explanation, which proves on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent did not discriminate.

[105]A respondent would normally be expected to produce “cogent evidence” to discharge the burden of proof. If there is a prima facie case and the explanation for that treatment is unsatisfactory or inadequate, then the Tribunal must make a finding of discrimination. Health and Safety Regulations

[106]The relevant parts of Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 SI 3242 are as follows: “Risk assessment 3.— Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of— (a)the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work; and (b)the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking, for the purpose of identifying the measures he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions […] Risk assessment in respect of new or expectant mothers 16.—(1) Where— (a) the persons working in an undertaking include women of childbearing age; and (b) the work is of a kind which could involve risk, by reason of her condition, to the health and safety of a new or expectant mother, or to that of her baby, from any processes or working conditions […] the assessment required by regulation 3(1) shall also include an assessment of such risk.

(2) Where, in the case of an individual employee, the taking of any other action the employer is required to take under the relevant statutory provisions would not avoid the risk referred to in paragraph (1) the employer shall, if it is reasonable to do so, and would avoid such risks, alter her working conditions or hours of work.

(3) If it is not reasonable to alter the working conditions or hours of work, or if it would not avoid such risk, the employer shall, subject to section 67 of the 1996 Act suspend the employee from work for so long as is necessary to avoid such risk. […] Notification by new or expectant mothers 18.— Nothing in paragraph (2) or (3) of regulation 16 shall require the employer to take any action in relation to an employee until she has notified the employer in writing that she is pregnant, has given birth within the previous six months, or is breastfeeding. […] Statutory Sick Pay

[107]Presently, Statutory sick pay is paid when an employee is off work sick for at least four days in a row. This means that Statutory Sick Pay is not paid on the first three days of sickness in the circumstances that arose in this case. These first three days are known as ‘waiting days’ [Sections 154 and 155(1) Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992]. Our Conclusions

[108]The issues between the parties which fell to be determined by the Tribunal are set out above.

[109]There is no dispute in this case that, at all material times, the Claimant was within the protected period as defined by section 18(6) Equality Act 2010.

[110]For us to reach the conclusion that the Claimant has been subjected to pregnancy discrimination, there must be evidence, although it is possible that evidence could involve inferences drawn from relevant circumstances. A belief that there has been unlawful discrimination, however strongly held, is not enough on its own.

[111]In order to decide the complaints of discrimination because of pregnancy, we had to determine whether the Respondent subjected the Claimant to the treatment complained of (which is set out in the List of Issues above) and then go on to decide whether, if the treatment did occur, it was unfavourable treatment. If there was unfavourable treatment we had to decide whether that treatment was because of the Claimant’s pregnancy.

[112]We applied the two-stage burden of proof referred to above. We first considered whether the claimant had proved facts from which, if unexplained, we could conclude that the treatment was because of her pregnancy. The next stage we had to consider, if necessary, was whether the respondent had proved that the treatment was in no sense whatsoever because of pregnancy. We set out below our conclusions on these matters for each allegation listed in the List of Issues.

[113]In assessing the evidence before us and in reaching our conclusions, as well as considering each complaint individually we have also taken a step back and considered all of the complaints/allegations made in the round. This included our finding that Jane Quaintrell did say to the Claimant “oh well its not the end of the world I suppose” during a conversation in which the Claimant told her that she was pregnant. We did not have a transcript of this telephone conversation, or a clear or detailed account of what was said during the conversation in its entirety. We do not know what exactly prompted her to make that comment. Whilst it was a careless and insensitive comment, we formed the view that it did not demonstrate any malign intent regarding the Claimant’s pregnancy on Jane Quaintrell’s part as this would have been entirely inconsistent with the numerous supportive comments made by Jane Quaintrell in the messages that are before us. Did the Respondent pick faults with the Claimant’s work that was unjustified?

[114]We have found that, on 28 November 2023, Jane Quaintrell did check over the property concerned whilst the Claimant was working there and she did flag up that there were hairs in the shower that needed dealing with. We did not find that there were any other aspects of the Claimant’s work that was criticised. Whilst the Claimant’s evidence was that Jane Quaintrell was intentionally finding fault with her work in an unjustified manner, we find that what the Claimant described was no more than quality checking and that there was nothing unjustified, unreasonable or discriminatory about this. We do not consider that this was in any way amounted to unfavourable treatment.

[115]However, in any event, had we found that the treatment was unfavourable, we would not have found that it was because of pregnancy. We would have concluded that the reason that Jane Quaintrell was particularly diligent in carefully quality checking the work was because there was a celebrity staying at the property that evening and she wanted everything to be of a very high standard. Did the Respondent remove the Claimant without her consent from the work WhatsApp chats?

[116]We have found that the Claimant was removed from various work-related WhatsApp groups on 30 November 2023. These were WhatsApp groups relating to day to day cleaning work and administration. She was not removed from the Guesty group.

[117]When the Claimant was informed by Jane Quaintrell that they were going to remove her from the groups she did an emoji thumbs up and said that it was fine. She did not object in any way at that stage. We also note that Jane Quaintrell did offer to reinstate the Claimant in the groups after she raised her removal as an issue, but there is no evidence before us to show that the Claimant took her up on that offer. We therefore do not consider that the Claimant was removed from the WhatsApp groups without her consent or that the Respondent’s actions in any way amounted to unfavourable treatment. On the contrary we are satisfied that these steps were taken to minimise any worries that the Claimant may have had whilst off work and unwell. Did the Respondent discuss the Claimant’s pregnancy and pregnancy related illness with her colleagues?

[118]We have found that Jane Quaintrell did not discuss the Claimant’s pregnancy and pregnancy related illness with her colleagues at any point.

[119]As the Claimant has not shown that the alleged act occurred, we have not gone on to consider whether there was unfavourable treatment in respect of this issue. Did the Respondent breach health and safety provisions?

[120]It is not in dispute that the type of work that was being undertaken by the Claimant could present a risk to a pregnant woman and her baby. That is because it requires physical activity including lifting and carrying cleaning equipment and other items and the use of potentially hazardous cleaning products.

[121]The Respondent was informed that the Claimant was pregnant on the morning of the 28 November 2023. Jane Quaintrell contacted the Respondent’s HR advisor that morning to take advice and was promptly sent a blank pregnancy risk assessment form for completion and she arranged a meeting to carry out the risk assessment with the Claimant the next day. The risk assessment was not undertaken only because the Claimant was absent from work because of sickness at the time that the assessment was scheduled to take place.

[122]We have also considered whether there was a breach of health and safety because of the events of the 28 November 2023. We have found that Jane Quaintrell was not aware that the Claimant was unwell with a pregnancy related illness or had had any bleeding until the evening of the 28 November 2023 after she had left work. We have found that the Claimant told Jane Quaintrell that she was well during the course of the day. We found that the Claimant did not raise concerns with Jane Quaintrell about carrying the microwave. We have found that Jane Quaintrell was not aware that the Claimant had contacted her husband to ask for his assistance with carrying the microwave.

[123]We conclude that the Respondent took all reasonable steps to arrange a pregnancy risk assessment as soon as was practicable as required by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations. We therefore reached the conclusion that the Respondent did not breach regulations 3 and 16 of the Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

[124]We have considered whether Jane Quaintrell should have acted differently on health and safety grounds during the course of the working day on 28 November 2023 such as putting alternative arrangements in place to replace the microwave, giving the Claimant alternative work or sending the Claimant home if there was a risk to her health by continuing working.

[125]We have been provided with a document produced by the Royal College of Physicians entitled Advising women with a healthy, uncomplicated singleton pregnancy on: heavy lifting and the risk of miscarriage, preterm delivery and small gestational age. It is not suggested that Jane Quaintrell had regard to this document on the 28 November 2023. However, it has informed our view on what may constitute heavy lifting and the risks of heavy lifting when considering whether the Claimant was treated unfavourably on health and safety grounds because of pregnancy.

[126]It is stated in the document that: “Heavy lifting: the Health and Safety Executive does not give speciﬁc guidance for pregnant women but a ‘typical' load in research studies that provided such detail was about 10—12 kg (a load that is not uncommonly lifted in the home by pregnant women with toddlers). […] It is uncertain whether or not a heavy physical workload in pregnancy puts women at increased risk of either preterm delivery or miscarriage. It is possible that a heavy physical workload has no effect on either risk, but the balance of evidence suggests a slightly increased risk for both preterm delivery and miscarriage. If risks are increased, then there is good evidence that any increase in risk relating to these outcomes is likely to be very small. […] Other considerations Keeping active is generally thought to be healthy for pregnant women. This should be taken into account when considering whether, and by how much, a heavy physical workload may need to be reduced.”

[127]The microwave concerned was 10.8kg. Our understanding of what is said in the above document is that a heavy load may be considered to be 10 to 12 kg but then that is a load that is sometimes lifted in the home by pregnant women for example with toddlers. Lifting the microwave was therefore borderline as to whether or not it would be considered heavy lifting.

[128]Given that we have found that Jane Quaintrell was not informed that the Claimant was unwell or bleeding, and was told by the Claimant that she was fine, we reached the conclusion that she did not breach health and safety by asking the Claimant to lift a microwave. We conclude that she did not act unreasonably or unfavourably in the circumstances. Indeed, on the evidence before us and bearing in mind other allegations raised by the Claimant about her being isolated by the Respondent, we considered that there was a possibility that had the Claimant been prevented from undertaking her role, given alternative work or suspended on health and safety grounds, then she may well have considered that she was being treated unfavourably on that basis having just informed the Respondent that she was pregnant. Did the Respondent withhold a company vehicle to which she was entitled under the terms of her contract of employment?

[129]It is not in dispute that the Respondent had agreed that the Claimant was to be provided with a company vehicle to enable her to carry out her role. On the facts before us, we are satisfied that she was contractually entitled to this company vehicle. She was instead required to use her own vehicle which was a soft top and not an ideal vehicle for use for the role that she was undertaking. She was paid mileage expenses whilst using her own vehicle.

[130]We find that the failure to provide a company vehicle did amount to unfavourable treatment.

[131]We went on to consider whether that unfavourable treatment was because of pregnancy. This required us to consider why that unfavourable treatment happened.

[132]We have found that the vehicle was ordered on the 2 November 2023, was delivered to Screentech on the 29 November 2023 and was ready for collection by the Respondent on the 21 December 2023. We considered that it was not unusual for there to be a delay in delivery of a lease vehicle, particularly where it is being sign written as appeared to be the situation in this case. There was nothing whatsoever in the evidence from the Claimant to demonstrate that the vehicle was ‘withheld’ from the Claimant or that any delay in it being delivered was in any way as a consequence of or because of her pregnancy.

[133]The evidence clearly shows that the Respondent continued with the signwriting of the lease vehicle, having been informed on the day prior to when it was delivered to the screenwriting business that the Claimant was pregnant, and that the vehicle was subsequently ready for the Respondent’s use on the 21 December 2023.

[134]We find that whilst delay in providing the work van was unfavourable treatment that unfavourable treatment was not in any way because of the Claimant’s pregnancy. The delay was because of the lead time prior to when the vehicle was delivered and then time taken for screen-writing prior to it being ready for use by the business. Was the Claimant treated unfavourably in relation to sick pay when she had a pregnancy related illness?

[135]It is not in dispute that on the 29 November 2023 the Claimant was declared unfit for work until 30 January 2024 because of pregnancy related illness and bereavement.

[136]The Claimant was not issued with written terms and conditions during the course of her employment. We have found that there was no verbal agreement that the Claimant be paid her full salary whilst she was off sick. The draft terms and conditions (that were not executed) provide for company sick pay at the discretion of the employer. The Claimant therefore had no contractual entitlement to receive a full salary when off sick for whatever reason.

[137]Generally, there is no obligation on an employer to pay a full salary when someone is off sick with a pregnancy related illness. What is required is that an employee is not treated less favourably than a non pregnant employee would be if they were off work because of sickness.

[138]The Respondent did not, at the relevant time, have any other employees so it cannot be said that there were other employees who were sick but not pregnant who were paid a full salary when off work because of sickness.

[139]The Claimant was paid Statutory Sick Pay after the relevant ‘waiting days’ until she resigned.

[140]The Claimant was not treated unfavourably in only being paid Statutory Sick Pay. Approved by: