Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

In the case of Hale v Dentons UKMEA Legal Services ET/2200450/2017 the Employment Tribunal held that Mrs Hale had been selected for redundancy because she was on maternity leave and that dismissing her would therefore cause the least disruption to her employer, an international law firm.

The facts in Hale v Dentons UKMEA Legal Services

Mrs Hale worked for Dentons UKMEA LLP (“Dentons”), a well-known large international law firm, from 8 December 2014 as a Recruitment Manager. She was initially employed on a fixed-term contract but her position was made permanent on 1 July 2015. The recruitment team was headed by Mrs Rowe at the relevant times.

Mrs Hale performed well in the course of her employment with Dentons, although there were a number of minor issues that arose (for example, a complaint from a recruitment agency and difficulties in communicating with Dentons’ construction team).

In February 3016 Mrs Hale informed Dentons that she was pregnant and that her baby was due in August.

Mrs Hale exceeded performance targets for the 2015/16 year and she was told by Mrs Rowe in May 2016 that the partners in the firm were highly supportive of her and felt that she was doing an excellent job.

Mrs Hale went on maternity leave on 24 July 2016. Over the course of 2016 the amount of work that Dentons was doing reduced – the managing partner of Dentons reduced the number of approved vacancies that it was recruiting for in November 2016, and it was also decided to reduce the number of employees in the human resources team. On 14 December 2016 Ms Peacock, Human Resources Director, met with the human resources leadership team and decided to reduce the headcount in the recruitment team. Mrs Hale was placed in a redundancy pool for selection along with two other ‘generalists’ in the recruitment team: Natalie Bush and Laura Cooper.

On 21 December 2016 there was a meeting of the human resources leadership team to consider who was to be made redundant. The redundancy selection criteria were applied to the employees in the pool over a period of 45 to 60 minutes, with each employee being discussed separately. Mrs Hale was selected for redundancy. No notes were made of this meeting.

On 4 January 2017 Mrs Hale met with Mrs Rowe at Dentons’ London office. In this meeting it was discussed that there would be a need to make redundancies in the recruitment team and it had been decided that Mrs Hale would provisionally be selected for redundancy. She was told that this was the beginning of the process and that a ‘first consultation meeting’ would take place on 8 January 2017. Mrs Hale was surprised by this and asserted that she was the most productive member of the team. There was a further meeting on 6 January 2017.

Mrs Hale subsequently challenged the redundancy scores that she had been provided with, asserting that she couldn’t believe that she had only been given a score of ‘satisfactory’ in respect of the work she had carried out.

On 26 January 2017 Dentons wrote to Mrs Hale to inform her that her employment was to be terminated by reason of redundancy. Mrs Hale appealed against the termination of her employment. In this appeal she complained, among other things, that she believed she had been made redundant because of her decision to go on maternity leave. Mrs Hale’s appeal was rejected.

Mrs Hale subsequently made claims in the Employment Tribunal of pregnancy and maternity discrimination (section 18 Equality Act 2010), unfair dismissal (section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996), and automatically unfair dismissal (section 103 Employment Rights Act 1996).

The decision of the Employment Tribunal in Hale v Dentons UKMEA Legal Services

The Employment Tribunal found in Mrs Hale’s favour in respect of her claims for unfair dismissal, automatically unfair dismissal, direct sex discrimination, and pregnancy and maternity discrimination.

Automatically unfair dismissal

The Employment Tribunal held that there were sufficient facts to infer that pregnancy and maternity discrimination may have taken place: 1) she was coincidentally dismissed upon her return from maternity leave; 2) the Tribunal took the view that there was not a fair and genuine selection process in which Mrs Hale was genuinely rated less highly than her colleagues; 3) that there was a failure to take notes of the meetings, and that there was the lack of process that one would normally expect from such redundancy exercises. The Tribunal decided that, on the balance of probabilities, Mrs Rowe and Ms Barnes made the conscious decision that the easiest option would be to make Mrs Hale redundant as she was away on maternity leave and this would cause the least disruption.

Unfair dismissal

The Tribunal found that Mrs Hale had been unfairly dismissed for the following reasons:

  1. There was no consultation with Mrs Hale or her colleagues prior to the decision being made to make redundancies or on redundancy selection criteria
  2. Inappropriate selection criteria were adopted in that they were entirely subjective
  3. There was a lack of clear understanding of what the selection criteria were and how they were to be scored
  4. The scoring was not applied fairly
  5. The errors and failing were not corrected on appeal, with no rigorous investigation into the suitability of the criteria or scoring

Pregnancy and maternity discrimination

The Tribunal found that the following constituted unfavourable treatment because of Mrs Hale’s pregnancy or maternity leave:

  1. A failure to consult regarding redundancy selection criteria and weightings prior to the redundancy selection process being carried out on 23 December 2016;
  2. Pre-selection of Mrs Hale for dismissal and subsequently dismissing her purportedly for the reason of redundancy; and
  3. That Mrs Hale’s challenge to the selection criteria and scores given to her was not taken seriously

The Tribunal therefore found that Mrs Hale’s dismissal constituted an act of pregnancy and maternity discrimination, and that she had also been subjected to detriments because of this protected characteristic.

The Tribunal ordered that a remedies hearing be held at a later date in order to determine what remedies were appropriate in the case.

Our solicitors’ view on Hale v Dentons UKMEA Legal Services

Chris Hadrill, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “Employers must ensure that they carry out fair and transparent redundancy exercises and, further, that all relevant evidence of such is recorded and kept properly – this will not only help to ensure that a fair process is carried out but, equally, will assist the employer in defending any Employment Tribunal claim that may be made at a later date.”

The judgment of the Employment Tribunal can be found here

About

Redmans Employment Team deal with employment matters for both employers and employees, including drafting employment contracts and policies, advising employers and employees on compromise agreements, handling day-to-day HR issues, advising on restructures, and handling Employment Tribunal cases for both employers and employees Call 020 3397 3603 to speak to one of the members of our employment team or email us on enquiries@redmans.co.uk. Redmans have offices in Richmond, Chiswick, Hammersmith, Fulham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Ealing, Kings Cross and Marylebone (meetings strictly by appointment only).

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.63 Average

30 Reviews

Anonymous

Immediate response to my initial enquiry. Very clear throughout the whole process and thorough and great communication which worked really well during quite a stressful time. Chris Hadrill was extremely helpful and made me feel at ease.

Posted 5 days ago

Nick D

I received a very professional service from Chris. The advice given really helped to leave me comfortable to sign the settlement agreement following my redundancy. Would be happy to recommend your services to others.

Posted 5 days ago

Anonymous

Excellent service from initial contact to deliverables.

Posted 1 month ago

Virginia K

Yes, Chris Hadrill answered all my questions and I feel more confident with my current situation

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Chris Hadrill was referred to me my a friend of mine. I found the service to be efficient, quick and like Chris's direct approach to my work. Well done and thank you Chris!

Posted 1 month ago

Andy W

Very prompt & structured service that helped put my mind at rest at a difficult time

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

I have found Redmans to be very helpful, diligant and thoroughly professional when dealing with them, plus they gone that extra mile for me !

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Thank you to Chris Hadrill at Redmans for his assistance in settling my case. I contacted him at the very last minute and he was happy to help me and managed to get everything done on time and in a very professional manner. I will definitely be happy to work with him again .

Posted 2 months ago

Redman's provided excellent legal employment advice for me during a difficult time in my employment. Chris was my lawyer, super efficient, quick, reliable and clearly very experienced in the matter. Could not ask for a better law firm to deal with your query if you are in need of some help. Would definitely use them again in the future. Highly recommending Chris.

Posted 5 months ago

Steven

Chris Hadrill was very professional and responsive. I would highly recommend him

Posted 5 months ago

Dinah

Very Efficient, with very quick email reply’s. I had a matter that needed resolving within a very short space of time and Redmans Solicitors were great with dealing with my matter quickly.

Posted 5 months ago

Ankar

At Redmans the solicitor that was dealing with me was Chris. He dealt with my situation smoothly with clear guidance and explanation

Posted 5 months ago

Anonymous

Clear, concise advice and guidance delivered by an experienced and very capable solicitor, within the timelines required

Posted 6 months ago

Anonymous

Very efficient service. I never had to wIt for more than a day for a reply to any of my queries and the matter was dealt with swiftly.

Posted 6 months ago

Anonymous

Very timely, thorough and helpful advice. Friendly and considerate of the needs of the client

Posted 6 months ago

Anonymous

Very prompt and attention to detail. Thank you for the service

Posted 6 months ago

Chris

Couldn’t be happier with how Redmans successfully handled our seemingly tricky case. By being clear and detailed every step of the way, with the utmost professionalism and courtesy, they made it an informative and eye-opening process, taking the stress out of the situation and ultimately delivered what you would want from such a service. I fully appreciate everything they have done, and if I am ever in need of such services in the future, they will be the first number I contact. Excellent.

Posted 6 months ago

Anonymous

Excellent work delivered with great quality

Posted 6 months ago

Dominic

Chris Hadrill was a great help both in terms of his advice and his expertise. He explained my options to me clearly and concisely enabling me to quickly make the right decision for me in the circumstance. I would not hesitate to recommend Chris or Redmans to friends or colleagues, and would certainly make Redmans my first port of call should I require a similar service in the future.

Posted 6 months ago

Kurt

Redmans gave excellent advice and helped me understand everything in clear concepts. Thank you!

Posted 6 months ago

Anonymous

Resolved my issues

Posted 6 months ago