Graham v Eddie Stobart [2025] EAT 14

Facts

Miss Graham was employed by Eddie Stobart Ltd as a planner for just over ten months. She was made redundant after the company decided to cease its planning function in Scotland and create new "transport shift manager" (TSM) roles. Miss Graham, who was pregnant at the time, asserted her right to be offered suitable alternative employment during her maternity leave, as per Regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 (MAPLE Regulations). She was interviewed for a TSM role but was unsuccessful. Miss Graham submitted a grievance regarding the matter which was not dealt with because it was blocked by the company's IT system. The ET ruled that the TSM roles were not "suitable" for her and rejected her claim of unfair dismissal. However, the ET upheld her complaints of detrimental treatment and pregnancy/maternity discrimination for the company's failure to adequately deal with her grievance.

ET Decision

The ET did not award any compensation for pecuniary loss. It awarded £10,000 for injury to Miss Graham's feelings, placing it in the lower end of the middle Vento band. The ET based this award on Miss Graham's evidence that she was upset by the way she was treated and the failure to take her grievance seriously. The ET considered the Presidential Guidance on Employment Tribunal awards for injury to feelings and psychiatric injury and the cases of De Souza v Vinci Construction (UK) Ltd and Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No. 2).

Grounds of Appeal

Eddie Stobart Limited appealed the £10,000 award on two grounds: that it was excessive and that the ET's reasoning was insufficient. The company argued that the failure to deal with the grievance was an isolated incident and the award was disproportionate to the upset suffered. The company also submitted that the ET did not explain why it settled on the sum of £10,000.

EAT's Decision

The EAT upheld the appeal, finding the £10,000 award was excessive and not adequately reasoned. It found that the ET had not provided enough justification for placing the award in the middle Vento band. The EAT noted that the evidence of injury was limited to Miss Graham stating she was "shocked & upset" and that she felt people were dismissive of her and her rights. The EAT emphasized that awards for injury to feelings should be compensatory and proportionate, and should not be used to punish the employer. The EAT also noted that while the manner of discrimination can be considered, it should not be used as a sole proxy for the seriousness of the injury. The EAT substituted the ET's award with £2,000 plus interest of £169, totalling £2,169. The EAT stated that the £2,000 award reflected the limited scope of the unlawful behavior, acknowledging the upset Miss Graham experienced when she was chasing up her grievance during her maternity leave.

Comment on injury to FEELINGS

The case highlights the importance of providing clear and reasoned judgments when awarding compensation for injury to feelings. It emphasizes that such awards must be based on evidence of the actual injury suffered by the claimant and not simply on the nature of the discrimination. The case clarifies that while the manner of discrimination can be a helpful guide, it cannot be the sole basis for an award and that the focus should be on the effect of the discriminatory act on the claimant. It provides a framework for assessing the severity of injury to feelings in discrimination cases, emphasizing the need to consider the duration and impact on work and personal life.