Employee awarded £73k after tribunal finds that pregnancy influenced dismissal
A tribunal has awarded more than £73,000 to a video operations manager after ruling that her pregnancy and related absence played a role in her dismissal.
The employment tribunal concluded that the employer moved rapidly towards termination shortly after the employee informed the company she was pregnant. Plans that had previously been discussed to address performance concerns through a performance improvement process were abandoned, and the organisation instead progressed to dismissal.
The judge found that the speed with which the disciplinary process unfolded was closely connected to the employee’s pregnancy and the period of sickness absence linked to it.
Although the employer argued that the dismissal was based on performance concerns, the tribunal determined that the explanation provided was not persuasive. The judgment concluded that pregnancy had materially influenced the decision to terminate the employee’s contract.
The employee had joined the video production company in early 2023 and was dismissed in February 2024. Her probationary period was due to conclude in late 2023. Internal correspondence presented to the tribunal showed the company had considered extending the probation period or introducing a performance improvement plan because of concerns about her approach to the role.
Managers believed she was focusing too heavily on administrative tasks rather than leadership responsibilities.
However, the tribunal found that these concerns were not clearly communicated to the employee. Some discussions about her performance were informal, including meetings held outside the workplace, and the judge concluded that the employer had not fully expressed dissatisfaction with her work. As a result, the claimant was not aware that her job might be at risk.
The employee became pregnant in late 2023. In early December she took a short period of sick leave and later continued working remotely for several weeks due to ill health related to the pregnancy.
On 17 January 2024, during a scheduled online meeting with her manager, she informed him that she was pregnant. The tribunal heard that she appeared pleased to share the news and that the manager initially responded positively. She also explained that her doctor had recommended she work from home for health reasons, which the manager said was acceptable.
Later that month she was invited to a meeting described as a probation review, although dismissal was listed as a potential outcome. The tribunal determined that the meeting effectively operated as a disciplinary hearing.
The employee asked for the meeting to be postponed, stating that the situation was causing severe distress and raising concerns about the health of her unborn child. She also requested time to arrange a companion to attend the meeting with her.
The employer refused further delays, stating that there was a limit to how long the meeting could be postponed and indicating that it would go ahead even if she was unable to attend.
Shortly afterwards, the employee was locked out of her company email account and internal systems, which prevented her from accessing documents she believed were relevant to her case.
She later submitted a medical certificate from her doctor and lodged a formal complaint alleging discrimination.
Her employment was terminated on the grounds of alleged poor performance and misconduct. An internal appeal several months later upheld the decision to dismiss her.
The tribunal concluded that the company had taken a firm view that the employee should have been physically present in the workplace at the time she announced her pregnancy. The judge determined that, consciously or not, her pregnancy-related absence influenced the decision to end her employment.
At a separate hearing to determine compensation, the claimant was awarded £73,511.02. This included £32,453.12 in financial losses and £18,000 for injury to feelings. An additional 15 per cent uplift, worth £7,567.97, was applied because the employer failed to follow proper workplace procedures.
The judge noted that the manager appeared to minimise his concerns during discussions with the employee, giving the impression that her performance was satisfactory when internal communications suggested otherwise.
Should you have any questions relating to managing poor performance, contact 121 HR Solutions on 0800 9995 121.
0800 9995 121 
enquiries@121hrsolutions.co.uk
Follow us
Connect with us
Like us
iPhone App
Client Vacancies
121 HR Blog