Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) holds that £10,000 compensation awarded in pregnancy/maternity discrimination case is “manifestly excessive”
In Eddie Stobart Ltd v Graham, the EAT has held that an employment tribunal’s compensation award of £10,000 for injury to feelings was “manifestly excessive”. There was a finding of pregnancy/maternity discrimination that related to the employer failing to take adequate steps to deal with a grievance that the claimant had twice emailed to it, but which had been blocked by its firewall.
During the original hearing, the Employment Tribunal was provided with limited information or evidence relating to the Claimant’s “injury to feelings”. However, the tribunal’s findings against the Respondent were that there had been missed opportunities to ask the Claimant about the content of her grievance (which concerned the employer’s failure to offer her an alternative role prior to being made redundant) and to ascertain why it had not been received.
When considering the case, the EAT held that there was nothing which might indicate humiliation by way of ridicule or disempowerment; and as such the harassment occurred by way of omissions rather than a motivated campaign of harassment against the Claimant. The EAT confirmed that the proper and reasonable conclusion was that the employer’s failure to deal with the Claimant’s grievance was limited in its scope and impact. The EAT substituted an award of £2,000 in place of the £10,000 which had originally been awarded. When considering the amount to award, the EAT was mindful that chasing up a grievance whilst on maternity leave would have caused some injury.
During the hearing, the EAT commented that the parties can assist the tribunal in calculating injury to feelings by giving it more direct evidence and that the burden is on the Claimant to show that his or her feelings have been injured and to what extent. In this regard, the EAT commented that the following can be considered:-
- the claimant’s description of the injury. Tribunals should be ready to scrutinise apparent stoicism with as much as care as apparent upset. Tribunals should also take claimants as they find them, considering whether there are any personal circumstances which could make the claimant more susceptible to injury.
- duration of harmed caused. A claimant’s upset may be fleeting, or it may be enduring, and this is often influenced by the claimant’s resilience.
- effect on past, current and future work. The treatment of the claimant, and the degree of upset caused, can have an impact on an individual’s ability to obtain equivalent and fulfilling work.
- effect on personal life or quality of life. If a tribunal does consider this, it will be helpful to compare the claimant’s life before and after the discrimination. A third-party view may, in appropriate cases, be helpful, such as from a family member.
This decision may be reassuring for some employers, who might be worried about being heavily financially penalised for inadvertently getting things wrong. However, it does also show the importance of prioritising grievances and proactively managing them to resolution.
