Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Really Easy Car Credit Limited v Thompson [2018]
Really Easy Car Credit Limited v Thompson [2018]
Published on: 08/03/2018
Issues Covered: Dismissal Discrimination
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Legal Island
Legal Island
Background

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

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 08/03/2018