When Suzanne Bunning became pregnant, her employer carried out a general risk assessment and concluded that her welding job was not high risk. Following a miscarriage, she argued that the company had discriminated against her by not taking steps to avoid any health risks. The EAT upheld her claim. The requirement that Ms Bunning return to her old job or to another medium-risk job was a “detriment” under the Sex Discrimination Act and sex discrimination. The Court of Appeal agreed.

Bunning v GT Bunning and Sons Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 983

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/983.html

The EAT has held that an employer is not obliged to carry out a risk assessment for a worker just because she is pregnant. The duty to carry out a risk assessment arises only where an employee is exposed to the kinds of hazards contemplated by the regulations (although the list is not exhaustive). In this case, Ms O’Neill was a teacher. The EAT decided that the stress inherent in teaching is not of itself a “working condition” triggering an obligation to conduct a risk assessment in the absence of any other risk factors.

O’Neill v Buckinghamshire County Council UKEAT/0020/09/JOJ

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2010/0020_09_0501.html

There is no requirement for a pregnancy risk assessment to be in writing. In one case, the EAT accepted that the employer had carried out a risk assessment which took the form of meetings addressing particular concerns, as well as using a generic pregnancy risk assessment. The employer also kept a record of the risk assessment as required by the legislation.

Stevenson v J M Skinner & Co UKEAT/0584/07

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2008/0584_07_0603.html