Rohan Designs Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant succeeded in flexible working, pregnancy/maternity discrimination, and indirect sex discrimination claims but failed in the unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal upheld the complaints regarding the respondent's failure to comply with Employment Rights Act 1996 for flexible working requests and discriminatory practices.

The tribunal found that the claimant succeeded on flexible working, pregnancy/maternity discrimination, and indirect sex discrimination claims because the respondent failed to comply with statutory obligations and engaged in discriminatory practices, but the unfair dismissal claim failed on its merits following a full hearing.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Flexible Working Request Compliance with Employment Rights Act 1996
• •Pregnancy and Maternity Discrimination
• •Indirect Sex Discrimination
• •Unfair Dismissal

Case No: 3307032/2022 and 3308978/2022 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent Ms. Noemi Orban v Rohan Designs Limited Heard at: Cambridge On: 11 th , 12, 13 th and 14 th November 2024 (with a further day in chambers on 17 th January 2025) Before: Employment Judge: Mr. A Spencer Mr. C. Grant (non-legal member) Mr. K Rose (non-legal member) Appearances: For the Claimant: Mr. Platts (the claimant’s husband) For the Respondent: Mr. A. Serr (counsel) RESERVED JUDGMENT Flexible Working 1. The following complaints that the respondent failed to comply with section 80G(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 regarding the claimant’s flexible working request are well founded and are upheld: (a) The respondent failed to deal with the claimant’s flexible working request in a reasonable manner contrary to s.80G(1)(a) ERA; (b) The Respondent failed to notify the Claimant of its decision in respect of her flexible working request within the decision period contrary to s.80G(1)(aa) ERA. 2. The remaining complaint that the respondent failed to comply with section 80G(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 is not well founded and is dismissed. 3. The complaint that the respondent rejected the claimant’s flexible working request based on incorrect facts is not well founded and is dismissed. Case No: 3307032/2022 and 3308978/2022 2 Pregnancy/Maternity Discrimination 4. The following complaints of pregnancy and maternity discrimination are well founded and succeed: (a) The respondent’s failure to consult the Claimant on changes to product department, communicated to her on 25 April 2022 (and in particular, the failure to consult regarding the creation of a new role of Material Manager); 5. The remaining complaints of pregnancy and maternity discrimination are not well founded and are dismissed. I…