Employment appeal tribunal reduces compensation for discrimination from £10K to £2K
In the case of Eddie Stobart Ltd v Miss Caitlin Graham, the employment appeal tribunal (EAT) considered the appropriate compensation for injury to feelings in cases of maternity-related discrimination.
Redundancies
Miss Caitlin Graham was employed by Eddie Stobart Ltd as a planner at their Newhouse depot from July 2021, earning an annual salary of £28,000. In October 2021, she informed her employer of her pregnancy. In March 2022, the company initiated a reorganisation, proposing redundancies for the nine planners at Newhouse and introducing four new ‘Transport Shift Manager’ (TSM) roles with a salary of £31,000 per annum.
Suitable alternative employment
Miss Graham asserted her right to be offered suitable alternative employment during maternity leave, in preference to other redundant employees (under Regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 – MAPLE Regulations). The company took the view that the TSM roles were not ‘suitable’ for her and required her to interview competitively. She started maternity leave on 12 April 2022, was interviewed the following day, and was unsuccessful.
Submitted a grievance
Subsequently, Miss Graham submitted a grievance on 26 April 2022, expressing concerns about the redundancy process and her treatment. Due to IT issues, her grievance emails were not seen by the intended recipients. Despite informing members of the HR team about her grievance, no further action was taken. Her employment was terminated on 26 May 2022 due to redundancy.
Claim to ET
Miss Graham submitted a claim to the employment tribunal (ET) alleging automatic unfair dismissal under section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, detriment under section 47C of the same act, pregnancy/maternity discrimination under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010, and victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010.
Discrimination upheld
The ET dismissed the claims of unfair dismissal and victimisation but upheld her complaints regarding the company’s failure to address her grievance, constituting detrimental treatment and pregnancy/maternity discrimination. The ET awarded her £10,000 for injury to feelings, placing the award in the lower end of the middle Vento band, which guides compensation amounts for injury to feelings.
Excessive award
Eddie Stobart Ltd appealed the £10,000 award, arguing it was excessive and lacked sufficient reasoning. The EAT, led by Judge Barry Clarke, upheld the appeal, finding that the ET’s award was manifestly excessive given the limited evidence of injury. The EAT noted that Miss Graham’s evidence of being ‘shocked’ and ‘upset’ was genuine but fleeting, with no indication of prolonged distress or impact on her personal or professional life.
The EAT emphasised that compensation for injury to feelings should correspond to the actual harm suffered and should not serve to punish the employer. The tribunal must focus on the effect of the discriminatory act upon the particular claimant, considering factors such as the description of the injury, duration of consequences, and impact on work and personal life.
Award reduced
Consequently, the EAT substituted the original award with a reduced sum of £2,000, aligning it with the lower end of the bottom Vento bottom band, appropriate for less serious cases. Additionally, interest of £169 was added, bringing the total compensation to £2,169.
Implications
This case highlights the importance of proportionality in awarding compensation for injury to feelings in employment disputes. Tribunals must carefully assess the evidence of injury and ensure that awards reflect the actual impact on the claimant, avoiding excessive sums that could be perceived as punitive.
Employers are reminded of the importance of addressing employee grievances promptly and effectively, especially concerning maternity rights, to prevent potential claims of discrimination and associated liabilities.
Need support with your HR?
Our support means you can focus on education, while we take care of your organisation’s HR needs.
CEFM has a wide range of education HR consultancy services, offering complete flexibility for your school.. Get in touch for a consultation about how we can help you.
The grievance section of our CEFMi website contains a wide range of model policies, information, letters and flowchart. Get a free trial of CEFMi – a comprehensive resource for school managers containing over 7,000 pages of text. No other website offers such a complete service specifically written for schools.