A sales manager who was told that “nobody wants to see a pregnant woman” has successfully established that the remark amounted to pregnancy job discrimination. This was after the Claimant alleged that the treatment towards her changed after she told her manager she was pregnant.

An Employment Tribunal found that her manager had made an “inherently discriminatory” comment. However, Ms Morgan’s pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaint was brought outside the applicable Employment Tribunal time limit. The tribunal therefore dismissed that claim.

Ms Morgan did, however, succeed with a separate claim of victimisation at work. Here the tribunal found that actions taken against her were connected to protected acts, including bringing Employment Tribunal proceedings.

The case is an important reminder that employees who are pregnant or taking maternity leave have significant legal protections. It also highlights why anyone who believes they have been discriminated against should act promptly. Not adhering to Employment Tribunal time limits can prevent an otherwise valid claim from proceeding.

What Happened to Jessica Morgan?

Ms Jessica Morgan began working for Panelex Wood Agency in April 2020 as a sales manager. Her title later became national sales manager. She had a close working relationship with Mr Fredrick Hawkes, who had responsibility for hiring and firing and was effectively her manager on a day-to-day basis. On 18 July 2023, Ms Morgan informed Mr Hawkes that she was pregnant.

The tribunal heard that she subsequently became anxious about the impact her pregnancy and maternity leave could have on her role within the business.

Read More: Worker Wins €50k After Pregnancy Discrimination at Work

A particularly significant incident occurred in or around November 2023. Ms Morgan offered to assist Mr Hawkes with preparing for a client presentation. According to her evidence, he responded by saying: “Nobody wants to see a pregnant woman, Jess.”

Mr Hawkes denied making the comment.

However, the tribunal was presented with contemporaneous WhatsApp messages that Ms Morgan had sent to a friend. In those messages, she complained about sexist comments at work. She specifically referred to being told that “nobody wanted to see a pregnant woman”.

The tribunal considered those messages to be a reliable contemporaneous account of what had happened and concluded that Mr Hawkes had made the comment on one or more occasions.

Why Was the Comment Considered Pregnancy Discrimination?

The tribunal found that the comment amounted to unfavourable treatment.

It considered that saying nobody wanted to see a pregnant woman suggested that the way a pregnant employee looked would make her off-putting to clients. The comment had also been made while Ms Morgan was pregnant and therefore during the relevant protected period.

Crucially, the tribunal found that the comment was made because of her pregnancy. It related directly to her appearance as a pregnant woman and whether she should be seen by clients. The tribunal described this as “inherently discriminatory”.

This aspect of the case demonstrates that pregnancy discrimination at work does not have to involve dismissal, demotion or a reduction in pay. Comments and decisions that disadvantage an employee because she is pregnant can potentially amount to unlawful discrimination.

What Happened During Ms Morgan’s Maternity Leave?

Ms Morgan began maternity leave in January 2024. During her leave, she continued communicating with Mr Hawkes and remained concerned about her position within the company. The tribunal found that she was anxious to demonstrate that she remained willing to assist the business.

There were disputes over matters including her work email, contact information and requests concerning keeping-in-touch days. However, the tribunal did not find that all of these matters amounted to pregnancy or maternity discrimination.

For example, it concluded that there had been a proper reason for changing her work email arrangements and did not find that a response concerning keeping-in-touch days amounted to unfavourable treatment.

This is an important aspect of the judgment. Although the tribunal accepted that a discriminatory comment had been made, it did not automatically accept every allegation Ms Morgan brought simply because she was pregnant or on maternity leave.

Each allegation had to be considered separately on the available evidence.

What Happened to Ms Morgan’s Employment?

Ms Morgan met Mr Hawkes on 22 October 2024 to discuss her return to work. The tribunal found that the parties ultimately reached a mutual agreement under which Ms Morgan would not return to work. As part of the arrangement, she understood that she could keep her company car until Christmas and would receive outstanding sums including holiday pay and her final maternity pay.

Ms Morgan subsequently became unhappy with how matters had been handled and argued that she had effectively been made redundant without a proper process. However, the tribunal did not accept that she had been dismissed.

It considered her communications immediately following the meeting and concluded that they were consistent with someone who understood that an agreement had been reached to end the employment relationship.

As a result, her unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims were unsuccessful.

The Company Car and Outstanding Holiday Pay

Following the end of her employment, another dispute developed concerning Ms Morgan’s outstanding payments and company car.

Ms Morgan sought payment for holiday entitlement that had accrued while she was on maternity leave. Moreover, she had originally understood that she could keep the company car until Christmas. However, shortly after she pursued the outstanding holiday payment, she was asked to return the car earlier.

Read More: Pregnancy-Related Sick Leave: Video Editor Wins £73k

The tribunal found that this amounted to a detriment. It concluded that the employer had effectively reneged on its previous agreement once Ms Morgan sought payment of the sums she believed were legally owed to her. The tribunal described the car as having been used as a bargaining chip in connection with her request for payment.

This became important to her successful claim of victimisation at work.

Employer Claimed She Owed More Than £58,000

The dispute escalated significantly after Ms Morgan started Employment Tribunal proceedings. Her claim form was received by the tribunal on 20 February 2025. The respondents were subsequently notified of the claim. Shortly afterwards, Panelex sent Ms Morgan a Letter Before Action alleging that she had been mistakenly overpaid throughout her employment.

The company claimed that she had received a £40,000 net salary rather than the £40,000 gross salary originally agreed and demanded repayment of £58,333.32. The letter warned that legal proceedings could follow if she did not repay the money. Ms Morgan disputed the alleged debt and questioned the timing of the demand.

The tribunal ultimately found that the employer had been aware of the possibility of an overpayment before receiving the Employment Tribunal claim. It concluded that the Letter Before Action was sent in direct response to Ms Morgan pursuing proceedings.

Tribunal Described the Letter as “Extremely Aggressive”

The tribunal found that the Letter Before Action subjected Ms Morgan to a detriment. It described the tone as “extremely aggressive” and found that receiving it would have caused her significant distress.

The tribunal also noted that the employer did not provide a breakdown or supporting evidence for the substantial sum it claimed she owed, despite her requests. It later characterised the demand as a “grossly disproportionate response”. It then concluded that it had been a knee-jerk reaction taken in anger following receipt of her Employment Tribunal claim. No further action was ultimately taken by the employer over the alleged debt.

The tribunal concluded that Ms Morgan bringing the proceedings had materially influenced the decision to send the letter. Her claim of victimisation at work therefore succeeded.

What Did the Employment Tribunal’s Judgment?

Ms Morgan brought several claims, and the outcome was mixed.

Her unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims were dismissed because the tribunal concluded that her employment had ended by mutual agreement rather than dismissal. Her direct sex discrimination claim was also unsuccessful.

Read More: Pregnancy Rights in Employment: Co-op Enhances Paid Bereavement for Pregnancy Loss | Redmans Solicitors

However, the tribunal found that the “nobody wants to see a pregnant woman” comment amounted to unlawful pregnancy and maternity discrimination under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010.

There was an important problem with that claim: time limits.

The tribunal found that the discriminatory incident occurred in or around November 2023 and that the claim had been brought significantly outside the applicable limitation period. It declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis.  Therefore, although the pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaint was well-founded, it was ultimately dismissed because it was out of time.

In contrast, Ms Morgan’s victimisation claim succeeded.

What Does UK Law Say About Pregnancy Job Discrimination?

Pregnancy and maternity are protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

Under section 18 of the Act, an employer can discriminate against a woman if it treats her unfavourably during the protected period because of her pregnancy or because of an illness resulting from her pregnancy. Importantly, an employee bringing this type of claim does not generally have to identify someone who was treated more favourably in comparable circumstances. The question is whether she experienced unfavourable treatment because of her pregnancy.

This could potentially include excluding a pregnant employee from opportunities, making decisions based on assumptions about her capabilities or commitment, reducing responsibilities because she is pregnant, or making employment decisions based on pregnancy-related stereotypes.

Protection can apply from the point at which an employee becomes pregnant. However, the employer will generally need to know, or reasonably be expected to know, about the pregnancy for pregnancy discrimination protections to become relevant.

What Can Pregnancy Discrimination at Work Look Like?

Pregnancy discrimination at work can take many forms and may not always be as explicit as the comment made in Ms Morgan’s case.

An employer might overlook a pregnant employee for promotion because it assumes she will not want additional responsibility. A manager might stop giving her important clients or projects because they believe customers would prefer dealing with someone else.

An employee could also be discriminated against because of pregnancy-related sickness. Furthermore, an employer could treat maternity leave as evidence that an employee is less committed to their career.

Pregnancy discrimination can also arise during recruitment. An employer should not reject an otherwise suitable applicant because she is pregnant or because it assumes she will soon take maternity leave.

Similarly, an employer should not make decisions based on stereotypes about how pregnancy will affect someone’s appearance, performance, availability or future commitment to work.

Employees Have Protection Against Pregnancy-Related Dismissal

A dismissal where the reason or principal reason relates to pregnancy, childbirth or maternity leave can potentially amount to automatically unfair dismissal. Unlike an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, employees do not need two years’ qualifying service to bring an automatically unfair dismissal claim. Such dismissal could also give rise to a discrimination claim under the Equality Act.

However, Ms Morgan’s case demonstrates why it is important to establish whether a dismissal actually occurred.

The tribunal concluded that her employment ended by mutual agreement. Her unfair dismissal claim therefore failed even though the tribunal separately found that she had previously experienced pregnancy discrimination.

What is Victimisation at Work?

Employees who complain about discrimination also have protection against victimisation at work.

Under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, victimisation can occur where someone is subjected to a detriment because they have carried out a protected act, or because another person believes they have or may carry out a protected act. Protected acts can include bringing proceedings under the Equality Act or taking certain other steps connected with discrimination legislation.

A detriment can take many forms. It does not necessarily have to involve dismissal or financial loss. For example, an employee who raises a discrimination complaint might potentially experience victimisation if they are subsequently excluded from opportunities, subjected to unjustified negative treatment or threatened because they made the complaint.

In Ms Morgan’s case, the tribunal found that the treatment surrounding the company car and the aggressive Letter Before Action amounted to victimisation.

Employees should therefore be able to assert their discrimination rights without being punished for doing so.

How Can You Protect Your Rights if You Are Pregnant?

If you believe you are being discriminated against because of pregnancy, it can be helpful to keep an accurate written record of what happens. Record significant conversations, dates, decisions and comments. Retain relevant emails, messages and documents where you are entitled to do so. Contemporaneous evidence can be particularly valuable.

This was demonstrated in Ms Morgan’s case. WhatsApp messages she sent to a friend shortly after the discriminatory remarks helped the tribunal determine what had happened despite Mr Hawkes denying making the comment.

Where possible, employees may also want to raise concerns with their manager or HR department. If informal discussions do not resolve the problem, raising a formal grievance may be appropriate.  Your grievance can explain what happened, why you believe the treatment is connected to pregnancy or maternity and what you would like your employer to do about it.

If you are concerned about your position, you may also want to obtain specialist employment law advice. It is advisable to do so before agreeing to significant changes to your role or the termination of your employment.

Do Not Ignore Employment Tribunal Time Limits

Perhaps the most important practical lesson from Ms Morgan’s case concerns time limits. She successfully established that she had experienced pregnancy and maternity discrimination. Nevertheless, that claim was dismissed because it had been brought too late.

Employment Tribunal discrimination claims are subject to strict limitation periods. Employees should not assume that raising a grievance or attempting to resolve the dispute internally will automatically preserve their right to bring a claim.

At the time of writing, most discrimination claims will ordinarily need to be brought within the applicable statutory time limit, with Acas Early Conciliation also forming an important part of the process. The calculation can become complicated where there are multiple incidents or an alleged continuing course of discriminatory conduct.

If you believe you have experienced pregnancy job discrimination, it is sensible to obtain advice promptly rather than waiting for an internal process to finish.

Pregnancy Should Not Limit Your Career

Pregnancy should not be treated as evidence that an employee is less capable, less committed or unsuitable for client-facing work. The Morgan case demonstrates the risks of allowing stereotypes about pregnant employees to influence workplace behaviour.

The tribunal was satisfied that telling Ms Morgan nobody wanted to see a pregnant woman amounted to unfavourable treatment because of her pregnancy. It also found that she later experienced victimisation at work in connection with protected acts.

At the same time, the case provides an equally important warning about limitation periods. Establishing that discrimination occurred will not necessarily result in a successful Employment Tribunal remedy if the claim is submitted too late.

Employees who believe they have been discriminated against because they are pregnant, taking maternity leave or asserting their legal rights should therefore consider seeking advice as early as possible.

Experienced Pregnancy Job Discrimination? Get Help with Redmans

If you believe you have experienced pregnancy job discrimination, pregnancy discrimination at work or victimisation after raising concerns, contact Redmans Solicitors today. Our specialist employment solicitors can assess your circumstances, explain your legal rights and advise you on your possible next steps.

If you may have grounds to bring an Employment Tribunal claim, we can also advise you on the process and the important time limits that could apply.

To get started on your journey with us today, please:

• Phone us directly on 020 3397 3603
• Complete our online form to request a consultation