The claimant was on a 12 week probation period and had been spoken to about performance. Towards the end of her probation she took two days off due to morning sickness. Soon after she returned she was told her performance was poor and she was dismissed. In the ET the claimant, acting in person, alleged her line manager had influenced the owner of the business, who dismissed the claimant, by making disparaging comments about the pregnancy and argued that she was dismissed for that reason and not because of her performance. The ET found the dismissal was unfair.

The respondent appealed and in this judgment HHJ Tayler allows the appeal as the tribunal had not directed itself to consider Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd, and had not appropriately considered who was responsible for the dismissal and what knowledge they had of the pregnancy stating at [36]

"What emerges from Reynolds is that may be necessary to consider a number of stages in a process that results in dismissal and determine whether the person or persons who took a decision in that process were motivated to some extent by the protected characteristic of the claimant."

The matter was remitted to the same tribunal to reconsider in that light.