Miranda Harris is launching an employment tribunal case against her former employers DLF Trifolium.
She worked for DLF Trifolium from 1994, first as a marketing consultant and subsequently as a full time marketing and communications manager, before being made redundant in February 2009, when DLF Trilfolium let five people go, including all three members of the marketing team.
The Notice of Hearing will take place over four days at Bennett House, Town Road, Hanley, Stoke on Trent ST1 2QB starting on March 29 2010.
The claim will be heard by an Employment Tribunal, conducted by an employment judge sitting with members and will include the following list of Issues by the Claimant:
- Was the Claimant discriminated against by reason of her gender in that she was treated less favourably than a man was or would have been treated contrary to s1 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA).
- When the Claimant was selected for redundancy was the reason for her selection wholly or mainly informed by her marital status contrary to s3 (2)(a) SDA and contrary to s3 (1)(a) SDA
- When the Claimant was selected for redundancy was the reason for her selection wholly or mainly informed by her gender contrary t and s6 (2)(b) SDA.
- Within the meaning of the same sections aforementioned did the Respondent discriminate against the Claimant insofar that it subjected her to a detriment by not promoting her and by excluding her from management activities commensurate with her role?
- Was the Claimant subjected to an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment within her workplace and within the meaning of s4A SDA?
- Was the Claimant victimised within the meaning of s4 SDA in that she was harassed, subjected to a detriment and ultimately dismissed because she had carried out a protected act by alleging sex discrimination against her employer.
- Do the above allegations constitute a course of action extending over a period of time ending with the Claimant's dismissal purportedly by reason of redundancy?
- Alternatively is each of these allegations discrete events. If so would it be just and equitable for the Employment Tribunal to be seized of jurisdiction on these allegations despite them being claimed out of time within the meaning of s76 SDA.
DLF Trifolium said:
"We understand that Mrs Harris has issued a press release in relation to her forthcoming employment tribunal proceedings.
"It would be inappropriate for us to comment on the detail of the allegations made by Mrs Harris save to say, like all businesses, we regret the need to make redundancies. When making redundancies in the marketing department we acted in accordance with our employment law obligations and consulted with Mrs Harris prior to taking the decision to make her redundant.
"We strongly contest the allegations that Mrs Harris has made and confirm that the company will be calling evidence which will rebut all of the claims that she has made. The nature of the case is that the claimant's evidence is likely to be heard first and it is likely to take some time for her evidence to be given and challenged in cross examination. The company will then have an opportunity to present its evidence and the full picture will not become clear until all of the evidence has been given over a number of days.