EMPLOYMENT LAW AND PRACTICE

UNIT 6
Task 2 – Exemplar

NOTE to students: in practice, the correct years will be shown in the ET1/ ET3
and the italicised points in brackets would be omitted.

Baker v Deanes Kitchens and Bathrooms Ltd.

Section 8.2 ET1

Please set out the background and details of your claim in the space below.

The details of your claim should include the date(s) when the event(s) you are
complaining about happened. Please use the blank sheet at the end of the form if
needed.

1. The Claimant commenced employment with the Respondent as an

administrative assistant on 1 September 20XX. (eight years ago).

2. The Respondent is a family company specialising in the design, delivery and

installation of luxury kitchens and bathrooms. The Respondent employs
approximately 80 staff.

3. The Claimant was initially recruited as an administrative assistant and has been
promoted twice by the Respondent between 20XX (eight years ago) and 20XX
(last year). She is now the Assistant Finance Manager and has held this post
since May 20XX (last year).

4. The Claimant is responsible for four of the ten employees in the Respondent’s
finance department. Her duties include checking the work of her team, dealing
with customer enquiries and completing the day-to-day accounts of the
Respondent. The Claimant has also deputised for the previous Finance
Manager, Stuart Hollis, in his absence.

5. Since the Claimant began to work for the Respondent she has worked hard to
improve her formal qualifications. She attended evening classes to secure A’
levels in Mathematics and Computer Studies and she is now in the second year
of a part-time degree course in Accountancy, which she is financing herself.

6. In or about January 20XX (this year), the position of Finance Manager was
advertised by the Respondent.

7. The Claimant applied for the post and was interviewed on 23 February. The
Claimant was interviewed by Mark Phillips, the Respondent’s Managing Director
and by the Respondent’s Human Resources Manager, Mrs Betty Gardener.

658877102.docx 21 © The University of Law Limited

8. During the interview Mr Phillips focussed on the Claimant’s children rather than
the post available. Mr Phillips alleged that the Claimant’s commitment to her
work had diminished in the past few months and implied that this was due to her
family circumstances. Mr Phillips expressed doubt that the Claimant would be
capable of fulfilling the post of Finance Manager as a woman with two young
children at home.

9. The Claimant was angered, surprised and distressed by Mr Phillips’ attitude.

The Respondent had not, on any previous occasion, expressed any concerns
about the quality of the Claimant’s work. About 3 months’ earlier, Mr Phillips had
visited the Claimant in her office to thank her for doing such a good job in the
department. During the interview on 23 February, the Claimant emphatically
denied that her domestic situation interfered with her performance of, or
commitment to, her job. She pointed out to Mr Phillips and Mrs Gardener that
over the past eight years, she had successfully combined family, work and
study.

10. On 26 February, the Claimant received an e-mail from Mr Phillips thanking her
for her interest in the post of Finance Manager and informing her that her
application had been unsuccessful. No reasons were given for the decision.

11. An e-mail sent to all staff on 26 February confirmed that Mr Gerry Oldfield had
been appointed to the position of Finance Manager. Mr Oldfield had previously
worked in the Respondent’s marketing department.

12. On 30 March, the Claimant wrote to Mr Phillips to invoke the Respondent’s

grievance procedure. A meeting was held between Mr Henry Jones, a director
of the Respondent, and the Claimant on 9 April. The Claimant was given the
opportunity to air her concerns about her failure to be promoted. Mr Jones told
the Claimant that Mr Phillips had explained why he had asked the Claimant
about her children and said it was because the Claimant appeared to be
nervous. He confirmed that Mr Phillips had said that the decision to promote Mr
Oldfield was because he was better suited to the job. Mr Jones told Mrs Baker
that he did not see any reason to interfere with the promotion decision that had
been made. The Claimant does not accept the explanation given.

13. The Respondent directly discriminated against the Claimant because of her sex
in that the Respondent treated the Claimant differently and less favourably on
the ground of her sex:
a) in the way the interview for promotion was conducted and
b) in deciding not to appoint her to the post of Finance Manager.

© The University of Law Limited 22 658877102.docx