Eddie Stobart Limited v Caitlin Graham

An award for injury to feelings must compensate the injury actually suffered. The manner of discriminatory treatment may assist a tribunal to infer the likely severity of that injury where direct evidence is limited. It is not a proxy for seriousness and must not lead to punishment of the employer.

Where the evidence shows only genuine but fleeting upset caused by an isolated and limited procedural failure, a middle-band Vento award may be manifestly excessive. A tribunal must also give sufficient reasons to explain its assessment and band selection. Compensation cannot include upset caused by unsuccessful complaints of separate conduct.

The claimant was made redundant while on maternity leave. Her employer did not deal with her grievance concerning the redundancy process because its firewall blocked her emails. The Employment Tribunal rejected her automatic-unfair-dismissal and victimisation complaints, but upheld claims of maternity-related detriment and pregnancy/maternity discrimination arising from the inadequate response to the grievance.

The Tribunal awarded £10,000 for injury to feelings. The employer appealed only that remedy award, contending that it was perverse and inadequately reasoned. The central issues were whether the award properly reflected the limited evidence and scope of the unlawful treatment, and whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal should substitute an award rather than remit the matter.

1. Appeal allowed. The £10,000 award was manifestly excessive and perverse. The claimant’s relevant evidence was that she was shocked and upset by the unanswered grievance. The Tribunal found only a degree of upset. It made no finding of enduring injury, an effect on work, or an effect on personal life or quality of life.

2. Compensation is for the claimant’s injury, not for the manner of discrimination. The manner of unlawful treatment may cautiously support an inference about injury where the evidence is sparse. It cannot be used as a proxy for injury or as a means of punishing poor management. Here, the unlawful conduct was a limited procedural failure: missed opportunities to clarify and investigate a grievance. It was not overt discrimination, ridicule, humiliation or disempowerment.

3. The claimant’s upset about not being offered the transport shift manager role could not increase the award. Her complaints about that decision had failed, and the Tribunal made no finding that those events created a relevant vulnerability which aggravated the later injury. The only reasonable classification was the lower Vento band.

4. The Tribunal also gave inadequate reasons. It did not explain why £10,000, rather than another sum, represented the assessed degree of injury or justified the lower end of the middle band. Its decision was not Meek-compliant.

5. Under section 35 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, substitution was preferable to remission. The parties had addressed remedy and the claimant had given her full evidence. The EAT substituted £2,000, reflecting genuine but fleeting minimal injury and a modest inference of additional stress during maternity leave. Interest of £169 was added under the Employment Tribunal (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996. The employer was ordered to pay £2,169.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the employer’s appeal against the remedy award and substituted compensation of £2,169.
• Employment Tribunal: judgment sent to the parties on 14 June 2023. It dismissed the principal dismissal and victimisation complaints, upheld claims concerning the failure to deal adequately with the grievance, and awarded £10,000 for injury to feelings.