Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2001] All ER (D) 282 (Jan)
Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal
Judge:

Lindsay J, Mr D lambert and Mr J Rivers
Representation The appellant did not appear and was not represented.
  Thomas Kibling (instructed by Richard Hutchinson & Co) for GL Ltd.
Judgment Dates: 26 January 2001

Catchwords

Employment - Discrimination against a woman - Dismissal because of pregnancy - Appellant leaving job two weeks after informing respondent employer of her pregnancy - Appellant claiming sexual discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal on grounds of pregnancy - Employment tribunal finding no discrimination or unfair dismissal - Risk assessment - Whether tribunal's decision unreasonable or perverse - Whether matter of risk assessment res judicata - Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992, regs 3(1), 13A and 13C.

The Case

An employment tribunal had been entitled to find that the appellant's complaint of sexual discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal had not been proved. Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations1992, the requirement in reg13A of an assessment of the risks posed to women of child-bearing age imposed two separate duties upon an employer, namely a general duty in respect of all women of child-bearing age and a particular duty in respect of an individual once she had informed her employer of her pregnancy. Only the second duty had been considered at a directions hearing upon the appellant's complaint, so that the tribunal had not acted unreasonably in considering the general duty and that matter had not been res judicata.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.

Lexis®Library

  • The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
  • Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
  • Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary