Ms A Monti v Marks and Spencer Group plc: 4110616/2019
| Judgment Date | 18 June 2020 |
| Citation | 4110616/2019 |
| Published date | 07 April 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Sex Discrimination |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: 4110616/2019
5
Held in Glasgow on 2, 3, 4 and 5 March 2020
Members’ meetings on 21 and 28 May 2020
Employment Judge S MacLean
Tribunal Member P McCall
10
Tribunal Member S Singh
Ms A Monti Claimant
Represented by:
Mr A Crammond -
15
Barrister
Marks and Spencer Group Plc Respondent
Represented by:
Mr J Anderson -
20
Barrister
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that:
25
1. The Tribunal finds and declares that the respondent unlawfully discriminated
against and victimised the claimant, contrary to section 39 of the Equality Act
2010, and her complaint of discrimination contrary to sections 19 and 27 of
the Equality Act 2010 succeed.
2. The Tribunal finds and declares that the respondent subjected the claimant
30
to a detriment, contrary to section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and
her complaint under section 47E of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
3. In respect of unlawful discrimination, the Tribunal orders that the respondent
shall pay to the claimant compensation for loss of earnings amounting to
SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-FOUR POUNDS AND
35
FORTY-SEVEN PENCE (£7,154.47).
4110616/2019 Page 2
4. In respect of injury to the claimant’s feelings the Tribunal also orders that the
respondents shall pay to the claimant a further amount of ELEVEN
THOUSAND POUNDS (£11,000) for her injured feelings.
5. In terms of the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination
Cases) Regulations 1996, it is further ordered that the respondent shall pay
5
to the claimant the additional sum of ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED
AND NINE POUNDS AND FIFTY SIX PENCE (£1,109.56) representing the
total of (a) interest of two hundred and seventy two pounds and ninety six
pence (£272.96) on the claimant’s loss of earning of £7,154.47, calculated at
the appropriate interest rate of eight percent per annum by reference to the
10
mid-point between 7 July 2019 (date of the first act of discrimination) and 18
June 2020 (being the date of this Judgment); and (b) interest of eight
hundred and thirty six pounds and sixty pence (£836.60) on the injury to
feelings award of £11,000 calculated at the appropriate interest rate of eight
percent per annum for the period between 7 July 2019 and 18 June 2020
15
being the date of this Judgment.
REASONS
Introduction
1. The claimant sent a claim form to the Tribunal on 5 September 2019 claiming:
1.1. Direct disability discrimination (section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA)).
20
The claimant claims that the respondent discriminated against her by
treating her less favourably because of her mother’s disability than it
treats or would treat others. Acts of less favourable treatment were
defined as (i) declining her flexible working request (FWR); (ii) imposing
a change in her employment contract in relation to working hours; and (iii)
25
asking her whether she had considered stepping down to a customer
assistant role.
1.2. Victimisation (section 27 of the EqA). The claimant claims that the
respondent victimised her by imposing a change to her employment
contract and that it did so because she had done a protected act by (i)
30
4110616/2019 Page 3
making a FWR to ask the respondent adhere to her contractual hours
only because of her mother’s disability and caring responsibilities and
raising a grievance; and (ii) raising a grievance.
1.3. Indirect sex discrimination (section 19 of the EqA). The claimant claims
that the respondent indirectly discriminated against her in its applications
5
of its policies and process: the requirement to work a late shift; the
requirement for the team leaders to work a night shift once per week (the
PCP) puts women at a disadvantage because they are more likely than
their male colleagues to be the primary carer for disabled parents and/or
children and therefore this requirement puts them and puts the claimant
10
at a particular disadvantage compared to male colleagues.
2. The respondent admits that the claimant’s mother was disabled in terms of
section 6 of the EqA. The respondent denies discrimination as alleged or at all.
3. Having heard representations for the parties at the start of the hearing the
Tribunal allowed the claimant to amend the claim form to include a claim under
15
section 47E of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (the ERA). The claimant
claimed that the respondent subjected her to a detriment because she made
(or proposed to make) a FWR (under section 80H of the ERA) and as a result
she suffered the detriments upon which she relies in respect of her victimisation
claim under section 27 of the EqA.
20
4. The claimant gave evidence on her own account. For the respondent, the
Tribunal heard evidence from Linda Stewart, formerly Section Manager; Beth
Moran, Clothes and Home Commercial Manager; and Amy Cherry, Store
Manager, Cumbernauld. The Tribunal was also referred to a joint set of
productions.
25
5. The Tribunal has set out facts as found that are essential to the Tribunal’s
reasons or to an understanding the important parts of the evidence. Mr
Crammond and Mr Anderson provided the Tribunal with written submissions
which they gave orally when the evidence finished. The submissions were
carefully considered by the Tribunal. For ease they summarised below in the
30
To continue reading
Request your trial