Blundell v. St Andrew�s Catholic Primary School & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a decision of the Employment Tribunal at London (South) dated 6 April 2006. The Appellant, a female teacher employed since 1992 at a primary school ("The School"), alleged she suffered multiple detriments by reason of her pregnancy and sought a declaration and compensation for injury to feelings. The employer denied that pregnancy was the reason for any detrimental treatment and argued no reasonable employee would consider the treatment a detriment.

The claims focused on five main areas: the Appellant's refusal to accept a "floating" teaching role after disclosing her pregnancy; the alleged frosty and distant attitude of the Head Teacher ("Mrs Assid") towards her during pregnancy; the Head's reaction when the Appellant took sick leave for a pregnancy-related condition; the failure to invite the Appellant to express class teaching preferences during maternity leave; and the assignment to a different class upon return to work, which the Appellant contended was not "the same job" she had before maternity leave.

The Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding the Appellant was employed as a teacher generally, not specifically to a particular class, and that the Head Teacher acted within her discretion and did not treat the Appellant less favourably on the grounds of pregnancy or sex. The Appellant appealed the Tribunal's decision.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant was subjected to less favourable treatment on the ground of pregnancy or sex in the form of pressure to accept a floating teaching role.
2. Whether the Head Teacher's alleged frosty and distant attitude during pregnancy amounted to discrimination.
3. Whether the Head Teacher's reaction to the Appellant taking sick leave for a pregnancy-related condition constituted less favourable treatment.
4. Whether the failure to invite the Appellant to express teaching preferences during maternity leave amounted to discrimination.
5. What constitutes "the same job" under regulation 18 of the Maternity and Parental Leave (etc.) Regulations 1999 and whether the Appellant was returned to it.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The attempt to persuade her to accept a floating teaching role was an act of less favourable treatment linked to pregnancy and caused her distress.
• The Head Teacher’s frosty and distant attitude after she refused the floating role was discriminatory.
• The Head Teacher’s angry reaction to her sick leave for a pregnancy-related condition was less favourable treatment due to pregnancy.
• Failure to invite her to express class preferences during maternity leave denied her a valuable opportunity and was discriminatory.
• She was entitled to return to the exact same job she held before maternity leave, not a different or more onerous role.
• The Tribunal erred in failing to resolve key factual disputes, including credibility issues between the Appellant and the Head Teacher, and whether the year two class was a high-pressure role.
• The Tribunal misapplied the legal test for detriment as established in Shamoon v The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and failed to properly consider the impact of pregnancy-related detriments.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Appellant sought a better position than she would have had if not pregnant, which is not required by law.
• The Tribunal correctly found no detriment in the floating role or other treatment, and the Head Teacher acted professionally and within her discretion.
• Reaction to the Appellant’s sick leave was due to disruption caused to the class, not because of pregnancy or sex.
• Failure to invite preferences was not a detriment because there was no guarantee the Appellant would have received her preferred class.
• The right to return to "the same job" does not require the exact same class assignment but refers to the nature of the work as a teacher, capacity, and place of work.
• Precedent warns against interpreting pregnancy-related absence as entitlement to preferential treatment beyond equal treatment.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the factual findings of the Employment Tribunal, particularly the credibility assessments between the Appellant and the Head Teacher. The Tribunal’s conclusion that the Head Teacher acted professionally and did not treat the Appellant less favourably on the ground of pregnancy or sex was upheld as neither perverse nor clearly wrong.

The court acknowledged the vulnerability of pregnant women and the importance of protecting them from discrimination but emphasized that treatment must be causally linked to pregnancy or sex to constitute discrimination. The Tribunal’s pragmatic approach to causation was endorsed, noting the limits of the "but for" test.

The Tribunal’s rejection of the claim that the Head Teacher’s reaction to the Appellant’s sick leave was discriminatory was supported by findings that the reaction was due to disruption to the class rather than pregnancy.

Regarding the failure to invite the Appellant to express class preferences, the court found that the Tribunal erred in concluding there was no detriment. The Appellant lost a real opportunity to influence her class allocation, which was a detriment in the sense recognized by Shamoon. This aspect was therefore allowed on appeal.

On the meaning of "the same job" under Regulation 18 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999, the court found no appellate authority but relied on the earlier decision in Edgell and legal principles to interpret "job" as the nature of work, capacity and place, not requiring the exact same duties or class assignment. The Tribunal’s factual findings that the Appellant’s role as a teacher generally, not tied to a specific class, was reasonable and not perverse.

The court emphasized the balance between protecting the employee from dislocation and allowing the employer reasonable discretion, concluding the Tribunal’s approach was correct and sufficient.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal in all respects except for the claim relating to the failure to invite the Appellant to express class teaching preferences in June 2004, which was ALLOWED.

Accordingly, the court substituted a finding that the failure to provide the Appellant with an opportunity to state her teaching preferences constituted discrimination on the ground of sex. The question of compensation was remitted to the Employment Tribunal for determination.

The decision does not set new precedent beyond clarifying the application of established principles regarding detriment and the meaning of "the same job" in maternity return cases. It underscores the necessity for tribunals to carefully assess factual disputes and the causal link between pregnancy and alleged detriments, applying a pragmatic approach to causation and discrimination.

The court encouraged the parties to consider a mutually agreeable settlement given the limited scope of the Appellant’s success.