The claimant was employed by the respondent as an administrator in the Continuing Healthcare Team.  She was appointed temporarily in January 2018 on an initial three month contract but she remained in the position until her termination in July 2018.  Issues arose with the claimant’s work as she was seen to only select the most straight-forward tasks and concerns were raised up the management chain.  However, at or around the same time the claimant had also complained that her line manager was not carrying out her fair share of the administrative tasks.  In terms of the complaint made, there was a meeting organised but the claimant could not make it as she had an antenatal meeting that day.  It was the day after this, the 26th April 2018, that she informed her employer that she was pregnant.

The claimant was invited to a meeting with her line manager where she was asked if the pregnancy had been planned as well as being asked if the maternity pay would have to come out of the budget.  The EAT made a factual finding that the line manager saw the pregnancy as a barrier to trying to terminate the employment of the claimant.  The claimant was given four weeks’ notice in July 2018 with the reason being given as one of budgetary constraints meaning that it was not possible to have the temporary ‘bank’ staff.

The claimant then brought claims based upon unfair dismissal and discrimination as a result of the comments made by her line manager.   The EAT held that the line manager was frustrated by the pregnancy as she felt that it would hamper her in seeking to terminate the claimant’s employment.  On the issue of the dismissal, the EAT held that whilst there were comments initially made about the effect of the pregnancy it was neither the sole nor the principal reason for the termination of employment.  Therefore, the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.

On the issue of discrimination, the EAT found that the comments made by the line manager asking if it was planned and if the money would come out of the budget were ‘objectively inappropriate’ and ‘upsetting’ for the claimant. As a result, the EAT found that there was discrimination based upon being pregnant.   The case was then listed for a remedies hearing if the parties could not agree.

Practical Lessons

This case demonstrates the real risk, from an employer’s perspective, of taking disciplinary action or dismissing an employee who is pregnant.    This was clearly the issue for the line manager, but this then manifested itself in questions relating to maternity pay and budget that were upsetting for someone expecting their second child.

It was also clear that the comments were not made to elicit any information as the claimant was in no position to determine the way in which the budget was used for that section considering she was only a temporary employee. However, when it came to dismissing the claimant it was held that it was not unfair as the reason was a budgetary one.  Therefore, care should be taken in addressing these concerns, but pregnancy is not an employee’s opportunity to be free from disciplinary action or dismissal.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e1d8eb7ed915d7c6b7930d5/Mrs_H_Camara_v_East_London_NHS_Foundation_Trust_-_3202118.2018_-_Judgment_with_Reasons.pdf