Lorraine Powell became pregnant during her probation period working at One Transport UK. After she told her employer, she was called in to a probationary review meeting where she was dismissed and then offered a new job on fewer hours and lower pay.
When Powell returned to work, the tribunal heard that she was bullied, not allowed to work from home and not invited to the staff Christmas party. She was invited to a disciplinary hearing and then resigned.
The tribunal ruled that she had been subjected to pregnancy discrimination and that she was unfairly and constructively dismissed.
Employers should ensure they have reasonable grounds if they dismiss a pregnant employee, advised Kash Dosanjh, senior associate at law firm Wright Hassall.
Speaking to HR magazine, he said: “To avoid putting themselves at risk, employers should ensure that a thorough investigation is carried out into any allegations against a pregnant employee. If a dismissal is warranted, it should be fundamentally clear that the dismissal is not because the employee is pregnant.”
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Read more: Mother awarded £90k for sex discrimination after job offer withdrawn
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Powell realised she was pregnant while completing her probationary period at One Transport UK in October 2022.
In the probationary review meeting that was called after she informed her employer of the pregnancy, Powell was told there was a chance that she would not be retained due to a downturn in business, which she claimed at tribunal that she did not believe. She suspected that the reason was because she was pregnant.
The tribunal found that there was no evidence anyone at the company had been told there would be redundancies. During the meeting Powell attended, no one mentioned redundancy as an option.
After the meeting with Powell, another employee was given a pay rise and recruited for other areas of the business. Tribunal judge Rayner ruled that there was also no evidence of financial downturn, or any other need for Powell’s hours to be reduced.
The tribunal report noted that Powell was treated differently to other employees who were recruited after she was. Her treatment was compared to that of other employees who were also in their probationary period at the time, and who were notably not pregnant. The respondent provided no evidence to the tribunal to support why only Powell was treated this way, and not other employees.
Powell was subsequently dismissed and then offered a job with fewer hours and lower pay.
This was “more than a coincidence”, judge Rayner commented. It amounted to unfavourable treatment as a result of her pregnancy, the judge ruled.
When Powell returned to work on fewer hours, she was expected to be in the office every day. This was different to other colleagues on the same hours as her, who were allowed to work from home.
In January 2023, she took time off work sick due to stress and bullying at work. She told the tribunal she was unable to reach the bathroom in the office as a result of being pregnant, and that no pregnancy risk assessment was carried out.
Management invited her to a disciplinary hearing, because they asserted her performance was “unacceptable” as she had failed to refer HR complaints for resolution, not responded to job applications, or assisted with recruitment.
While she was off sick, however, the company changed its hiring platform without telling her; she was locked out of the system.
The company's representative claimed that she had told colleagues the business was going bankrupt and they would have their contracts cancelled. The tribunal found that this was not true. The representative also told staff not to talk to Powell and did not invite her to the staff Christmas party.
“We find that the respondent was looking for excuses to criticise the claimant,” the tribunal noted, and that her treatment by the managers amounted to bullying.
The tribunal ruled that Powell was treated unfavourably, due to her pregnancy. This amounted to pregnancy discrimination.
On 31 January Powell resigned. The tribunal ruled this was as a result of the discrimination she faced, which constituted constructive and unfair dismissal.
She was awarded a total of £19,608.86 for loss of earnings and injury to feelings.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Read more: Quarter of mothers do extra work to cover childcare cost, survey finds
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“No-one is safe when it comes to the discrimination in the workplace,” commented Lauren Fabianski, head of campaigns and communications at Pregnant then Screwed, a charity that supports women who have experienced pregnancy discrimination.
Speaking to HR magazine, she said: “The reality is that 54,000 women are kicked out of the workplace every year. This number is astounding, and shows just how widespread this discrimination really is.
“Employers need to support pregnant women, mothers and people who are going through miscarriages or fertility treatment rather than trying to kick them out of a job. Becoming a mother doesn’t impact a woman’s skills or talent in the workplace, and we need to see the perpetrators – those who are discriminating against mothers – punished. We need to stamp out bad behaviour. This is how we will drive real change.”
Employers must only dismiss employees once they have carried out a thorough investigation, added Dosanjh.
"The Equality Act 2010 provides protection for employees who are pregnant, namely the right not to be discriminated against because of their pregnancy, maternity leave or any illness related to their pregnancy,” he added.
"To have reasonable grounds for dismissing pregnant employees, employees must ensure that a thorough investigation is carried out into any allegations. They also must ensure that the decision made following the investigation falls within the band of reasonable responses as part of this an employer should take into account all circumstances."