The complainant asserted she was treated less favourably at work from the point where she announced her pregnancy. She asserted she was targeted, bullied, and experienced a sudden and unwarranted change in the way members of management behaved towards her.  Prior to her maternity leave, she was the subject of disciplinary action for an inappropriate comment and received a verbal warning.  She felt the disciplinary action was excessive given the normal banter in the office.

She enquired about breastfeeding arrangements in the workplace and with the HR manager, prior to her maternity leave, took a tour of the building to identify a suitable room for her to express milk.  One meeting room was identified as potentially suitable but this was not finalised.

The complainant asserted she was given more onerous responsibilities on her return to work.  The Adjudicator, however, found that her role was the same in that she had been allocated the same work for a different market, Mexico instead of Canada.  She returned to work for one and a half days.  She asserted she approached the MD, who she perceived as uncomfortable on the topic, about her breastfeeding as the HR manager was not available.  The respondent denied this.  The Adjudicator did not accept that the MD stated or implied she would have to give up breastfeeding or that the respondent wished to prevent her breastfeeding and/or expressing.  Another employee had been afforded time to go home for these purposes but this was not suitable for the complainant.  The respondent was of the view it had complied with the relevant Statutory Instrument, SI654/2004.  The complainant had not given written notice of her intention to breastfeed before her return to work.  The Adjudicator stated “This failure was not raised by the Respondent, possibly not wanting to appear pedantic”.  She also noted that the respondent did not have any issue with the extension of the SI beyond 6 months.

The adjudicator stated, “It has been long held that the mere fact that the Complainant falls within one of the discriminatory grounds laid down under the Employment Equality Act is not sufficient itself to establish a claim of discrimination.”  Other facts must be adduced from which it may be inferred on the balance of probabilities that an act of discrimination has occurred.

She went on to say she found the respondent’s evidence more credible.  “I accept that there was some element of falling out between the Complainant and her team lead; however I have not been provided any evidence to substantiate that this was in relation to the Complainant’s gender or family status or the fact that she was pregnant.”

The adjudicator found that the complainant had failed to establish a case that she had been harassed.  With regard to the victimisation allegations, she found that the complainant had not linked her treatment with any of the grounds and had therefore not taken a protected action; victimisation was not upheld.

With regard to the allegation of constructive dismissal, the adjudicator found the complainant resigned and that the respondent “conducted itself in a manner which was conducive of maintaining a relationship of mutual trust and confidence” and it was not upheld.

All claims failed.

Why is this case of interest?