Sacking a pregnant employee on invented charges timed to dodge her maternity pay is one of the most serious forms of discrimination there is.
“Maximum 25% AcasThe Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. A public body that provides free, impartial guidance on workplace rights and disputes, and runs the mandatory early conciliation process before any ... uplift upheld on a very large pregnancy discrimination award, no automatic double-counting.”
If your employer disciplines or dismisses you without a proper process, and the timing lines up with a pregnancy or maternity leave, tribunals will take that timing seriously and can award the maximum penalty for it.
- Being disciplined or dismissed without being told the specific charges, without a hearing, or without a right of appeal can make the process unfair on its own, discrimination aside.
- There's no unwritten cap on the percentage uplift a tribunal can add for an unfair process just because the underlying award is large.
- Keep a written record of dates and what you were told, especially around a pregnancy announcement. Timing is often the clearest evidence of what really happened.
The situation
Two employees worked for a company running wedding venues connected to its owner, Sir Benjamin Slade. Sir Benjamin learned that both women were pregnant, within a few months of each other. The tribunal found he saw their pregnancies as 'highly inconvenient' and set out to force them out rather than deal with the cost and disruption of covering their leave. Over the following months, their pay stopped being processed properly, they were left stranded in a separate shell company with no real funds while other staff were transferred elsewhere, and one employee's grievanceA formal complaint raised by an employee against their employer, triggering a legal obligation to investigate and respond. about all this was ignored. Then, while she was in the advanced stages of pregnancy, the second employee was suspended on misconduct charges without being told what she was accused of, given no hearing, and no right of appeal.
What the tribunal found
She was dismissed by a letter backdated to the day before she gave birth prematurely. The tribunal found this backdating was a deliberate attempt to dodge liability for her statutory maternity payThe minimum amount your employer is legally required to pay you while you're on maternity leave, if you meet the qualifying conditions, mainly around length of service and earnings. It's separate from..., and described her suspension and dismissal as 'one of the most egregious acts of discrimination possible,' timed specifically to hit her when she was most vulnerable. Both employees won their claims for pregnancy and maternity discrimination, along with a separate finding that the company had failed to properly consult them over the transfer of their employment. The tribunal applied the maximum 25% uplift allowed under the Acas Code for the company's failure to follow a fair process, on top of separate compensation for injury to feelingsA head of compensation in discrimination claims that recognises the distress and hurt caused by discriminatory treatment, separate from any financial loss. The amount is assessed using the Vento guide... and aggravated damagesExtra compensation a tribunal can award on top of your normal claim if your employer's conduct was especially high-handed, malicious, or insulting, not just unlawful. It reflects the additional hurt c.... The employer appealed, arguing the uplift was too high given the size of the overall award, and that the tribunal had wrongly awarded both the uplift and separate compensation for the same conduct. The Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected both arguments. It held there's no unwritten rule that a large award somehow caps how high the percentage uplift can go, since Parliament set the maximum at 25% precisely so it would be available in the most serious cases. It also confirmed a tribunal doesn't have to assume an uplift and compensation for injury to feelings overlap just because they're both awarded on the same set of facts.
Slade and Hamilton v Biggs, Stewart and Aethelbert Ltd. Case Nos. EA-2019-000687-VP and EA-2019-000722-VP. Employment Appeal Tribunal. December 2021.