The Claimant’s employment commenced on 20 June 2016 and continues to date. Of these 20 staff, there are 8 men and 12 women (the Claimant being one of those women). The Respondent employs approximately 50 staff with about 20 of those staff working at Robert Denholm House near Redhill. The Facts 4 From the evidence heard, the Tribunal finds as follows: 5 The Claimant is employed as a Contracts Administrator by the Respondent, a facilities management services company.
![calibre systems maternity leave calibre systems maternity leave](https://content.protriathletes.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/pto-daytona-wildcard-sam-long.jpg)
The numbers appearing in square brackets throughout this judgment, are references to pages within that bundle. Each of the witnesses provided a written witness statement and the Tribunal was also given an agreed hearing bundle paginated 1 –. The Tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant, Ms Amanda Hynes and Mr Michael Hynes and, for the Respondent, from Ms Kim Lowe (Office Manager), Mrs Michelle Pepper (Contracts Administrator), Mr Matthew Mabey (Operations Director) and Ms De Villiers (Accounts). 4.3 If so, has the Claimant proved primary facts from which the Tribunal could properly and fairly conclude that the difference in treatment was because of the protected characteristic? 4.4 If so, what is the Respondent’s explanation? Does it prove a non- discriminatory reason for any proven treatment?’ 3 The Tribunal heard the evidence and submissions in this case on 8 and 9 January 2018 and then met in Chambers to reach its decision on liability on 19 January 2018. 2 At a Preliminary Hearing on 20 June 2017, the issues in the claim were defined as follows, Section 18: Direct discrimination on grounds of pregnancy/maternity ‘4.1 Has the Respondent subjected the Claimant to the following treatment falling within section 39 of the Equality Act 2010, namely,Ĥ.1.1 Her probation period was extended Case Number: 2301151/2017Ĥ.1.2 On the 7th July 2016 when she informed Kim Lowe she was pregnant she was asked why she couldn’t have been ‘more careful’ and why she did not use contraception.Ĥ.1.3 Being accused in a meeting on the 20th December 2016 with the Office Manager Kim Lowe of lying about her pregnancy (that she knew before she accepted the position with the Company) and informing her that she ‘should be ashamed of herself’ Ĥ.1.4 Her probationary period was extended for a third time.Ĥ.2 No comparators are required as this is a case of pregnancy discrimination. The Respondent denies the entirety of the claims. By an ET1, received on 25 April 2016, the Claimant brings claims of direct discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy / maternity contrary to section 18 of the Equality Act 2010.
![calibre systems maternity leave calibre systems maternity leave](https://thevaultproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Screen-Shot-2022-10-02-at-6.06.17-AM.png)
REASONS Introduction 1 This is the claim of Charlotte Kimberley, the Claimant, arising out of her employment with Calibre Building Services Limited, the Respondent. Case Number: 2301151/2017 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS BETWEEN Claimant Respondent Ms C Kimberley and Calibre Building Services Ltd Held at Croydon on 8, 9 & 19 January 2018 Representation Claimant: Ms Thornber, Counsel Respondent: Mr Seals, Solicitor Employment Judge Harrington Members: Ms MacDonald Dr Fernando RESERVED JUDGMENT The Claimant was treated unfavourably within the meaning of section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 by accusations made to her in a meeting on 20 December 2016 and by her probationary period being extended for a second time.