The claimant commenced her employment with the respondent Chinese takeaway business in August 2013. She never received a contract of employment or written statement of particulars.

Initially, she worked 39 hours per week until September 2015. She varied her hours by agreement with the respondents so that she did not have to work on Saturdays. This was in order to care for her mother who was suffering from the after-effects of a stroke. In August 2017, the claimant suffered a miscarriage. She only took three days off, for which she arranged alternative cover.

In January 2016, the claimant requested copy pay slips which incorrectly documented that she worked only twenty hours per week. She did not receive holiday pay for any time off. The only holiday pay received was for three days in February 2017, after she had asked for paid leave. 

In March 2017, the claimant advised her employer that she was pregnant, to which he replied “Are you serious? How long is it before you can lose it?” When the claimant inquired as to what was meant by this statement he repeated his question about losing it, which in light of her previous miscarriage, to which he had been made aware, made the claimant feel extremely uncomfortable.

The employment relationship subsequently deteriorated. The respondent became verbally aggressive, demanding she work Saturdays, in spite of their prior arrangement, and reducing her shifts to one night per week. The claimant then discovered that, despite the unilateral and arbitrary reduction in her hours, the respondent was advertising for new staff.

She felt she was being forced out of the job and when she raised a grievance, the respondent claimed he was not the owner, just the manager, citing another individual as the purported owner, of whom the claimant had never heard.  

The claimant felt under so much stress that she feared for the safety of her unborn child, and obtained a sick line. She was not in receipt of statutory sick pay or maternity pay. The combination of not having any money coming in and anxiety about the impending birth of her baby caused the claimant significant stress, not least because she previously had had a miscarriage.

The tribunal unanimously agreed that the timing of the respondent’s change of attitude towards the claimant; his aggression; the severe reduction of her hours; and the failure to pay her sickness benefit and maternity pay gave rise to a clear and compelling inference that she was being punished for causing inconvenience by being pregnant.

The tribunal ruled that the respondents treated the claimant less favourably because she was pregnant. It was also satisfied that the claims regarding holiday pay, unlawful deduction from wages and failure to provide a written statement of particulars were made out.

The tribunal held the treatment of the claimant was vindictive and callous. She was humiliated over a period of time and the lack of concern and compassion at the loss of her first baby alongside expressing a wish that she should “lose” her second child was viewed by the tribunal as shockingly cruel. 

The tribunal placed the case at the top of the middle Vento band and ordered the respondents to pay £18,000 for injury to feelings in addition to the other heads of claim.