The claimant worked for the respondent, a small family-owned company that sells second-hand cars. She began employment with the business on 20 June 2016. This was subject to the completion of a three-month probationary period, during which time her contract could be terminated by either side on one week’s notice.

The claimant discovered she was pregnant towards the end of July. She failed to report for work one morning as she was experiencing abdominal pain and had to go to hospital. None of this information was relayed to management. An incident ensued on the morning that she returned to work resulting in a meeting with the HR manager. It became apparent that certain issues had been raised with the claimant during the early weeks of her employment with regards her conduct, namely, taking too many cigarette breaks, wearing the uniform, and in relation to interactions with another colleague.

The directors sought to dismiss the claimant as they had grown tired of her “emotional volatility”, stating her conduct was not good enough and her performance “average at best”. A letter was drafted outlining the decision of the directors yet was not posted out. It was understood the HR manager would inform the claimant of the decision during an upcoming meeting. It was during this meeting that the claimant unveiled she was pregnant.

The claimant brought claims for automatic unfair dismissal and unlawful pregnancy discrimination. She argued the dismissal letter was falsely backdated, stating the decision to terminate her employment was not made before learning of her pregnancy.

According to the employment tribunal, delaying communication of the claimant’s dismissal meant that the respondent had an opportunity to review its decision in light of the knowledge that she was pregnant. The tribunal upheld the claimant’s complaints stating she had “proved facts sufficient to reverse the burden of proof” and that the respondent had failed to show that the reasons for her dismissal were unconnected to her pregnancy.

Allowing the respondent’s appeal, the EAT held the tribunal had failed to apply the correct legal test. It misapplied the burden of proof and imposed a positive obligation on the respondent to take a further decision once it had learned of the claimant’s pregnancy, which was not the correct approach as a matter of law. Furthermore, no prima facie case had been made out justifying a shift of the burden of proof and the tribunal had failed to consider the respondent’s explanation.

The judge ordered the claim to be remitted to a freshly constituted tribunal to consider whether there was any further decision (and not merely an omission to take a further decision) after the date of notification of the claimant’s pregnancy and, if so, whether that was because of her pregnancy and whether that was the reason or principal reason for the ultimate decision to dismiss. 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a96b2a340f0b67aa5087bb9/Really_Easy_Car_Credit_Ltd_v_Miss_A_Thompson_UKEAT_0197_17_DA.pdf