The Employment Tribunal (ET) has given a timely reminder of how the law protects pregnant employees, particularly when an employer’s “hidden” frustrations suddenly turn into a formal dismissal process following a pregnancy announcement.
Background:
Mrs. Farmer began working for a video production company founded by Mr. Pill in January 2023. While she had initially worked remotely from South Africa under a consultancy agreement, she subsequently moved to the UK and became a formal employee on a skilled worker visa in September 2023. Her role involved video editing and operations management, and there were early, unvoiced tensions regarding the scope of her leadership responsibilities and her daily commute from Reading to the office in Oxford.
In late 2023, the working relationship appeared stable on the surface, as evidenced by Mr. Pill sending an encouraging email and the claimant receiving bonuses. However, internal documents revealed that Mr. Pill had underlying concerns about her performance and was privately considering an extension of her probationary period. These concerns remained largely internal until January 2024, when the claimant took sick leave. On 17 January 2024, during a scheduled call, the claimant informed Mr. Pill that she was pregnant and that her doctor had advised her to work from home to manage her severe nausea.
Immediately following this disclosure, the respondent’s attitude shifted toward documenting performance failures. Mr. Pill sought written reports from colleagues to justify disciplinary action and contacted the HR firm Peninsula for advice on termination. Although the respondent attempted to characterise a meeting on 29 January as having been a standard “probation review,” the ‘invitation’ warned of potential dismissal. During this period, the respondent locked the claimant out of her work systems, citing a data breach after she had downloaded files to her personal laptop—an act she claimed was standard practice for remote work.
The respondent proceeded with a rescheduled disciplinary meeting on 6 February 2024, despite the claimant’s absence due to pregnancy-related illness and her request for a longer postponement. On 19 February 2024, the claimant was formally dismissed for poor performance and misconduct. She duly filed a claim with the ET.
Decision:
The ET eventually determined that, while some minor performance issues may have existed, the true “operative and substantial” reason for the dismissal was the claimant’s pregnancy and her resulting need for sick leave and remote work. The claimant was ultimately awarded over £73,000 in compensation, including an uplift for the respondent’s failure to follow fair procedures.
The ET’s reasoning centred on the sharp contrast between the respondent’s behaviour before and after the pregnancy disclosure. The Judge found that, while Mr. Pill had minor concerns about the claimant’s leadership style in late 2023, he viewed her as a “hard worker” and intended only to extend her probation or implement a performance improvement plan (PIP). The decision to skip these steps and move straight to dismissal only occurred after she announced her pregnancy.
The ET found it telling that the respondent’s primary concern, as expressed to their HR advisers, was the claimant’s inability to be physically in the office due to pregnancy-related illness and her commute. This led the Judge to conclude that the pregnancy and related sick leave were the “operative and substantial” reasons for the dismissal.
Implications:
This case offers a good reminder that “performance issues” will not mask discrimination. The most damaging factor for the employer was the chronology. The ET noticed a “before and after” effect. If an employer drastically changes their tone or skips standard disciplinary steps, such as a PIP, immediately after a protected disclosure, then the Court is highly likely to infer that the pregnancy was the “operative” reason for the change.
The Judge explicitly mentioned that the discrimination might have been subconscious. An employer does not have to “hate” the fact that an employee is pregnant to be guilty of discrimination; they only have to let the consequences of that pregnancy (such as sick leave or remote work) influence their decision to fire them.
The failure of the flexible working claim, however, highlights a strict legal reality. Even if a request is morally clear, it must be technically perfect to be legally binding.
