Ms A Riccobono v Bryan Cave LLP: 2200354/2016
| Judgment Date | 17 May 2017 |
| Citation | 2200354/2016 |
| Published date | 29 August 2017 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Parental and Maternity Leave |
Case Number: 2200354/2016
1
JB1
THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Ms A Riccobono v
Bryan Cave LLP
Heard at: London Central On: 28 February – 3 March,
20-23 March 2017
Employment Judge: Ms A Stewart
Members: Mrs C I Ihnatowicz
Ms J Webber
Representation:
Claimant: Mr J Bromige of Counsel
Respondent: Mr M Fodder of Counsel
JUDGMENT
The unanimous Judgment of the Tribunal is as follows:
1 The Claimant’s complaint that she was unfairly dismissed by virtue of
section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Regulation 20 of the
Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999, is not well-founded and
fails.
2 The Claimant’s complaint that she suffered unlawful discrimination
within the meaning of section 18(2) of the Equality Act 2010 is not well-
founded and fails.
3 The Claimant withdrew her complaint of sex discrimination under
section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 at the Hearing.
Employment Judge A Stewart
17 May 2017
Case Number: 2200354/2016
2
THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Ms A Riccobono v
Bryan Cave LLP
Heard at: London Central On: 28 February – 3 March,
20-23 March 2017
REASONS
Introduction
1. The Claimant, Ms Alycia Riccobono, by her Claim Form presented to the
Tribunals on 7 March 2016, brings the following complaints before the
Tribunal:
(a) That she was automatically unfairly dismissed because the reason for
her dismissal was that she was pregnant and/or for a reason connected
with her pregnancy, contrary to section 99 of the Employment Rights
Act 1996 and Regulation 20 of the Maternal and Parental Leave
Regulations 1999.
(b) That she suffered discrimination on the grounds of her pregnancy
and/or her pregnancy related illness, contrary to section 18(2) of the
Equality Act 2010, in that she was dismissed.
(c) In the alternative, that she suffered direct sex discrimination contrary to
section 13 of the Equality Act 2010.
2. The Respondent denies that the Claimant’s pregnancy and/or any pregnancy
related illness were matters of which they were aware at the time that the
dismissal decision was taken and played no part whatever in that decision.
The Respondent contends that the Claimant was dismissed before the end
of her probationary period because of poor work performance/capability.
3. The Tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant and from the following
witnesses called by the Respondent; Ms Carol Osborne, Managing Partner
To continue reading
Request your trial