News

Pregnancy and Maternity Discrimination: Assessing Injury to Feelings

Sadia Shakil v Samsons Ltd [2024] EAT 192

The recent case of Sadia Shakil v Samsons Ltd [2024] EAT 192 addresses key issues surrounding the assessment of injury to feelings. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) emphasised the importance of applying the Vento Guidelines and following Presidential Guidance when assessing compensation for injury to feelings.

Case Background

Sadia Shakil was employed as an accountant/bookkeeper at Samsons Ltd, a small property development company. The company's director, Mr. Saleem, became aware of Ms. Shakil's pregnancy on 30 March 2021, when she informed him that she was experiencing morning sickness. The following day, her working hours were reduced to two days a week.

In September 2021, Ms. Shakil received a letter suggesting she had been provisionally selected for redundancy. She was subsequently dismissed on 31 September 2021, a day before her maternity leave began on 1 October 2021.

Ms. Shakil brought a claim of pregnancy discrimination to the Employment Tribunal (ET), asserting that her dismissal and reduction in hours were directly related to her pregnancy. The respondent denied knowledge of her pregnancy and cited performance and conduct issues as the reasons for the dismissal.

The Employment Tribunal found in favour of Ms. Shakil, concluding that:

  • The reduction of her working hours in March 2021 was due to her pregnancy-related illness.
  • Her dismissal in September 2021 was motivated by her pregnancy.
  • The tribunal rejected the respondent's claims of redundancy or performance issues as justifications for the dismissal.

Employment Appeal Tribunal Findings

The EAT held that the Employment Tribunal had erred in law in its approach to assessing injury to feelings. The EAT highlighted several key failings:

  1. The tribunal did not identify the evidence provided by Ms. Shakil about the emotional impact of the discrimination.
  2. It made no factual findings about the injury to feelings suffered by Ms. Shakil.
  3. There was no reference to the Vento guidelines or any statutory provision or authority relevant to assessing injury to feelings
  4. The tribunal did not identify the relevant Vento band or explain the basis for the award within that band.

Given these shortcomings, the EAT concluded that the tribunal's analysis was wholly inadequate.

 

The EAT emphasized the importance of following Presidential Guidance when determining which band is appropriate and ensuring that the award is proportionate to the harm suffered.

The EAT allowed the appeal and remitted the assessment of injury to feelings to a different Employment Tribunal. It declined to substitute its own award, as the original tribunal had made no significant findings of fact regarding the emotional harm experienced by Ms. Shakil.

Key Takeaways

Whilst it may seem obvious, this case highlights the critical importance of:

  • Properly applying the Vento guidelines.
  • Tribunals making detailed findings of fact regarding the claimant's injury to feelings and evidence of such.
  • Referring to Presidential Guidance to ensure awards for injury to feelings are consistent and well-reasoned.

Case reported: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67596b2e78973003bbfaec8a/Sadia_Shakil_v_Samsons_Ltd__2024__EAT_192.pdf