Pregnant Consultant Fired Due to Pregnancy-Related Illness Awarded £93K in Unfair Dismissal Case

In Miss Paula Miluska v Mr Raamon Hussain, Mr Amaar Kabir and Roman Property Group Limited (“RPGL”), a pregnant employee won her unfair dismissal claim and was awarded nearly £100,000. In this case, the Employment Tribunal found that she was dismissed due to absences resulting from her pregnancy-related illness. Below, we examine what happened and the decisions made by the Tribunal. 

If you are pregnant at work and believe your rights have been breached, reach out to Redmans Solicitors now. With a team of employment law experts, we can answer your queries and provide specialist advice. All you need to do is get in touch, and we will undertake a brief consultation to assess your circumstances.

Contact us today by:

The Facts in Miss Paula Miluska v Mr Raamon Hussain, Mr Amaar Kabir and Roman Property Group Limited (“RPGL”)

Miss Paula Miluska (“the Claimant”) began working for Roman Property Group Limited (“the Fifth Respondent”) on 21 March 2022. Mr Raamon Hussain (“the First Respondent”) and Mr Amaar Kabir (“the Second Respondent”) were also employees at RPGL. The Third and Fourth Respondents weren’t mentioned in the Judgment.

Claimant Experiences Pregnancy-Related Illness

On 23 October, the Claimant found out she was pregnant. While this was an exciting time for her, by mid-November she began experiencing morning sickness. With severe nausea, vomiting, and “cold sweats,” she found it necessary to work from home on 21 November.

That day, she informed the Second Respondent of her pregnancy, and the pair agreed she could work from home. He asked if she knew when she would be returning, and the following day, she replied, stating, “The midwife was saying that at the moment if I can work from home, it’ll be best as these next two weeks are usually the peak of pregnancy nausea due to hormones. Also, she mentioned that when I go back to work, you need to do a health and safety assessment? I’m not sure what that is.”

The Second Respondent didn’t respond immediately. When he finally did on 26 November, he asked how she was getting on with her pregnancy-related illness, to which the Claimant replied that she felt “horrendous.”

The next day, on 27 November, he followed up, asking if she could return to the office the following week to assist in his absence. Unfortunately, the Claimant had thrown up multiple times throughout the day and had already been considering requesting the week off before receiving his message. As such, she responded, “I don’t think I’ll even be able to work from home, never mind the office.”

“Deliberately Vague” Dismissal Message Sent

Again, the Second Respondent didn’t respond immediately, leaving his reply for 1 December. At that time, he explained how the Fifth Respondent needed to find someone who could be in the office. He hoped the Claimant wouldn’t “take it personally” and insisted he would “try and see what other opportunities are there I can get you through the door for.” He concluded the message with a smiley face jazz hand emoji, hoping for a catch-up in the near future.

During proceedings, the Employment Tribunal labelled this message “obscure”. It said the Second Respondent had been “deliberately vague” to soften the blow of bad news which wasn’t “immediately obvious”. Nevertheless, it concluded the message brought the Claimant’s employment relationship with the Fifth Respondent to an end.

Confused about the message, the Claimant responded on 2 December. She was shocked to be getting fired, especially after still working despite her pregnancy-related illness, and said, “This is very out of the blue…”

Payments from the Fifth Respondent stopped on 1 December, and the Claimant subsequently initiated Employment Tribunal proceedings. Among other things, she brought claims of discriminatory dismissal due to unfavourable treatment because of her maternity-related sickness and automatic unfair dismissal.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Claimant was Dismissed

During proceedings, it was the Respondents’ case that the message sent on 1 December wasn’t dismissing the Claimant. While the Employment Tribunal agreed the words weren’t clear, it believed a dismissal had occurred. It held this view because:

  • A “reasonably informed reasonable bystander” would have taken the message to mean they were being fired, just as the Claimant did.
  • The First and Second Respondents had discussed the issue of an employee suffering from a maternity-related sickness, causing the Fifth Respondent to fall behind. Dismissal provided a resolution to this problem.
  • It assessed whether the Second Respondent’s words were spoken with awareness and reasoning and concluded that they were.

Dismissal Arising From Pregnancy-Related Illness Constituted Discrimination 

After determining dismissal had occurred, the Tribunal turned to the question of pregnancy discrimination. It outlined pregnancy rights at work under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010), namely, Section 18. This section outlines that a pregnant woman will be discriminated against if she faces unfavourable treatment because of her pregnancy or a pregnancy-related illness.

In this case, the Claimant was sacked because of her absences, which arose due to her maternity-related sickness. This was unfavourable treatment since others who weren’t pregnant wouldn’t have lost their jobs. Consequently, the Tribunal determined she’d faced pregnancy discrimination. While the First and Second Respondents were found liable for jointly deciding to dismiss her, the Fifth Respondent was found to be vicariously liable.

Automatic Unfair Dismissal Claim Won

With regard to automatic unfair dismissal, the Tribunal highlighted the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996). This legislation provides that a dismissal is deemed automatically unfair if it’s for a prescribed reason, such as pregnancy, childbirth, or maternity. That is, provided the incident occurred within the “protected period”, which is from the beginning of pregnancy until the end of maternity leave. The Tribunal then outlined Regulation 20 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 (MAPLE), reinforcing the above.

The Tribunal noted that a dismissal remains automatically unfair even if framed as due to the employee’s unavailability for work because of her pregnancy-related illness rather than the pregnancy itself. With this in mind, the Claimant succeeded with her automatic unfair dismissal claim.

Tribunal Awards £93k

Ultimately, the Claimant succeeded with the majority of her claims, including the above, detriment due to failing to pay 3 days’ wages, unlawful deduction of 3 days’ wages, failure to provide itemised pay statements, failure to provide written reasons for dismissal, breach of contract for failure to pay notice pay, discriminatory decision to dismiss, and detriment due to a decision to fail to pay 3 days’ wages.

In a subsequent remedy hearing, the Claimant was awarded £93,616.74. This included lost earnings, injury to feelings, aggravated damages, and a 25% ACAS uplift.

Pregnancy-Related Illness: Pregnancy Rights at Work

In the UK, employees who are pregnant at work have strong legal protections to ensure they’re treated fairly. As discussed in the above case analysis, the EqA 2010 prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy, while the ERA 1996 ensures pregnant employees aren’t unfairly dismissed. Below, we address two common concerns: working from home due to morning sickness and whether an employer can discipline an employee for maternity-related sickness.

Can I Request to Work From Home due to Morning Sickness?

Morning sickness is a common pregnancy-related illness that can make it difficult to attend work in person. While there’s no automatic right to work from home in such circumstances, employers must carefully consider requests and act reasonably.

Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, employers must ensure the well-being of employees, including those who are pregnant. Additionally, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require employers to conduct a specific risk assessment for pregnant employees and take necessary steps to reduce workplace risks.

As such, it may be necessary to allow a pregnant employee to work from home, particularly when they’re suffering from morning sickness, in order to protect their welfare. Should an employer refuse a request, it needs to have a valid business reason for doing so. If it doesn’t, and the refusal is deemed unreasonable or leads to negative treatment, it may be liable for pregnancy discrimination.

Can I be Disciplined for Pregnancy-Related Sickness?

Put simply, employees cannot be disciplined for pregnancy-related sickness, with the law providing clear protection against this. If an employer is found guilty of such actions, it could face court action and be ordered to pay out compensation for pregnancy discrimination or unfair dismissal. This was the case in Miss Paula Miluska v RPGL, where Miss Miluska won over £93,000.

Steps to Take If You Face Workplace Pregnancy Discrimination

If a pregnant employee faces unfavourable treatment at work, there are several steps they can take to protect their rights. Where appropriate, the first step is to address the issue informally. Speaking directly with HR or a manager can often resolve the matter without further escalation.

However, if an informal discussion doesn’t resolve the issue, the next step is to submit a formal grievance. This involves filing a written complaint detailing the discriminatory treatment and requesting a formal meeting to discuss the matter. Employers should then investigate and take appropriate action per the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.

If the situation doesn’t improve, though, it may be time to consider Employment Tribunal proceedings. But before an individual can take legal action, they must go through ACAS Early Conciliation. If no agreement is reached following this, the individual can then proceed with their Employment Tribunal claim.

Under UK law, most Employment Tribunal claims must be submitted within three months, less one day, from the date of the discriminatory act. Potential claims include pregnancy discrimination, automatic unfair dismissal, and failure to carry out a risk assessment. If the claim is successful, the Tribunal can award compensation for lost earnings, injury to feelings, and other damages.

Get Help From Redmans

If an employee is facing pregnancy discrimination, seeking legal advice can provide clarity on their rights and the best course of action. A solicitor can help with drafting grievance letters, negotiating settlements, and representing employees at the Tribunal if necessary. Moreover, taking early legal advice can increase the likelihood of a successful outcome.

So, if you’ve faced unfavourable treatment because of your pregnancy or pregnancy-related illness and want specialist advice, contact Redmans Solicitors today. As sector experts, we can assess your circumstances, discuss your next steps, and help you through the legal process.

To learn more: