In what seems like a “good news” judgment, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“the EAT”) has ruled that an Employment Tribunal’s injury to feelings award of £10,000 for pregnancy/maternity discrimination was manifestly excessive.

In the case of Graham v Eddie Stobart Limited, the only act of pregnancy/maternity discrimination found by the Employment Tribunal was that the employer had failed to take adequate steps to deal with a grievance that the employee had twice emailed to it but had been blocked by its firewall. Although every case turns on its facts, this did seem to be a very high award for such a case.

The facts

Ms Graham worked for Eddie Stobart and was one of nine employees placed at risk of redundancy. As she was on maternity leave then, she asserted her statutory right to be offered one of the four available new roles in preference to others – she believed that it constituted suitable alternative employment. Her employer did not consider that the role was suitable for her and therefore required her to attend a competitive interview. She was not successful in that interview and was not offered the role.

Ms Graham raised a grievance about this to her employer via email. She received no reply, and when she queried this, she was told to resend it. At a subsequent meeting at which she was dismissed by reason of redundancy, she enquired about her unanswered grievance. She was told that HR would look into it. Sometime later, it transpired that her emails had been blocked by the company’s IT firewall system.

Whilst some of her claims to the Employment Tribunal were dismissed, the ET did find that the failure to deal with her grievance was an act of pregnancy/maternity discrimination.

While the ET accepted that the two grievance emails had been blocked by the company’s firewall, the company nevertheless knew she had raised a grievance because she had repeatedly alluded to it and therefore Eddie Stobart had not done enough to follow this up.

In the absence of an acceptable explanation, the ET considered that her absence on maternity leave materially influenced the company’s approach to the grievance. It awarded her £10,000 for injury to feelings (which was at the lower end of the middle Vento band at the relevant time).

Eddie Stobart appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, arguing that the award of £10,000 was excessive, and the EAT agreed, finding that there was limited evidence of injury in this case.

Whilst the Claimant had said that she was shocked and upset because of the company’s dismissive attitude towards her, there had been no finding that the injury endured beyond the immediate experience of the detriment, and no finding of any adverse effect on her work, personal life or quality of life. In addition, there was no evidence of ridicule or humiliation. Instead, it found that the failure to deal with the grievance was limited in its scope and impact. This could therefore only have been a lower Vento band case, and it was perverse for the tribunal to place it in the middle band.

The EAT therefore concluded that the initial £10,000 injury to feelings award was perverse and substituted an award of £2,000 instead.

What can we take from this?

In any case where discrimination is found (and also in a number of other cases, such as whistle-blowing), an ET can make an award for injury to feelings to reflect the hurt and suffering caused. There is no exact science for calculating this, so they have to look at the manner of the behaviour and the upset caused.

For example:

  • How often and for how long was the employee subject to discriminatory conduct? i.e was it an isolated act or a lengthy campaign?
  • Was it done overtly, in front of others and as a form of ridicule or humiliation?
  • How did it make the victim feel and what effects has it had on them, what are the consequences and are they long-lasting?
  • Did it affect their chances of getting another job and/or affect their quality of life overall?

Our advice would also be to listen to employees who tell you they have raised a grievance and investigate why this has not been dealt with. Although this employee’s dismissal was held to be fair, it was unwise not to have pursued the existence of a grievance, and another case may find it differently.

If you’re unsure how to handle employee grievances or want to reduce the risk of tribunal claims, complete the contact form below for expert advice.

Scroll to next section

Scroll back to the top

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

For more information on how these cookies work, please refer to our Cookies Policy.

Strictly necessary cookies

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Analytics Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our website. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous.

Force24 cookies & tracking

This website utilises Force24’s marketing automation platform. Force24 cookies are first-party cookies and are enabled at the point of cookie acceptance on this website. The cookies are named below:

F24_autoID
F24_personID

They allow us to understand our audience engagement thus allowing better optimisation of marketing activity.