Phelan v Rolls -Royce Plc & Ors (Unfair Dismissal : Reasonableness of dismissal) [2014] UKEAT 0106_14_0412 (04 December 2014)

Phelan v Rolls -Royce Plc & Ors (Unfair Dismissal : Reasonableness of dismissal) [2014] UKEAT 0106_14_0412 (04 December 2014)

The Employment Tribunal did consider the fairness of the dismissal under section 98(4) ERA 1996 and found it fair within the range of reasonable responses. The Tribunal also treated the Storer pregnancy remark as both direct discrimination and sexual harassment, but found on the facts that it was not reasonable for the claimant to feel her dignity was violated, and thus rejected both claims.

Citation
[2014] UKEAT 0106_14_0412
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Miss Phelan; Respondent/employer: Rolls-Royce Plc
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
04 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment After Oral Hearing on Two Grounds
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Sexual Harassment, Direct Sex Discrimination, Victimisation, Costs Orders
Employment Law Discrimination Law Unfair Dismissal Sexual Harassment Direct Sex Discrimination Victimisation Costs Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss Phelan

Appellant/claimant

Rolls-Royce Plc

Respondent/employer

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment After Oral Hearing on Two Grounds

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal considered fairness under section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996 after finding a potentially fair reason for dismissal (SOSR)
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal treated a remark about pregnancy as a complaint of sexual harassment as well as direct discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal did consider the fairness of the dismissal under section 98(4) ERA 1996 and found it fair within the range of reasonable responses. The Tribunal also treated the Storer pregnancy remark as both direct discrimination and sexual harassment, but found on the facts that it was not reasonable for the claimant to feel her dignity was violated, and thus rejected both claims.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed