Video Editor Wins £73k After Being Locked Out of Work System While on Pregnancy-Related Sick Leave

A recent employment tribunal decision has brought renewed attention to workplace protections for pregnant employees. This comes after a video operations manager was awarded more than £73,000 following her dismissal while on pregnancy-related sick leave. The case highlights the real-world consequences of pregnancy and maternity discrimination, and underscores how easily unlawful treatment can arise when employers mishandle absence, performance concerns, and requests for workplace adjustments.

The ruling also reinforces the concept of automatic unfair dismissal, protection that applies when pregnancy materially influences termination decisions. Although the employer attempted to justify its actions on performance grounds, the tribunal found that pregnancy had influenced the dismissal.

This article explores the case facts and the tribunal’s reasoning. It then discusses the relevant legal framework and what individuals can do if their rights are breached.

If you have any concerns regarding your employment rights, contact Redmans Solicitors today. As specialists in the employment sector, we can answer your queries and provide expert advice. For those eligible, we can also guide you through each stage of the legal process.

Learn more about the services we provide by:

• Giving us a call on 020 3397 3603
• Requesting a callback via our online form

The Facts in Mrs Kaila Farmer v Fresh Cut Video Ltd

Issues with Pregnancy-Related Sick Leave Lead to Claim

Mrs Kaila Farmer (“the Claimant”) was employed by Fresh Cut Video Ltd (“the Respondent”) as a video operations manager. At the outset of her employment, there was no indication that her role was at risk. However, the situation began to change after she informed her employer that she was pregnant.

During her pregnancy, the Claimant experienced severe morning sickness that significantly affected her ability to attend the workplace. Acting on medical advice, she requested adjustments to her working arrangements to continue working remotely. In effect, this amounted to a flexible working request, intended to accommodate her pregnancy-related illness.

Although there were initial signs that her employer might support her, the tribunal found that the Respondent’s approach soon shifted. Concerns about her performance intensified, and discussions that had previously centred on support were abandoned.

Read More: Employees Stranded Abroad: A UK Employment Law Guide for the Middle East Conflict

Instead of offering structured support, the Respondent moved toward dismissal. The tribunal heard that the Claimant was locked out of the company’s systems while she was on pregnancy-related sick leave. This cut off her work access and excluded her from the organisation; a step followed by a swift dismissal process.

What proved particularly significant was the internal evidence. Communications suggested that the decision to dismiss the Claimant may have been made in advance, and that performance concerns were not the genuine or sole reason for her termination. The timing of events, particularly the proximity of her pregnancy disclosure to the escalation of performance concerns, raised serious questions about the Respondent’s motives.

Although the Claimant also brought a claim regarding the handling of her flexible working request, it wasn’t upheld. However, it did not undermine her broader claims of discrimination and unfair dismissal.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

The employment tribunal found decisively in the Claimant’s favour, concluding that her pregnancy had materially influenced the decision to dismiss her. In reaching this conclusion, the tribunal closely examined both the timing of events and the Respondent’s conduct.

The tribunal determined that the Respondent had failed to provide a convincing explanation for the dismissal based purely on performance. While performance concerns had been raised, they were not sufficient to explain the urgency and manner of the dismissal. The abandonment of earlier plans to support the Claimant through a structured process further weakened the employer’s position.

The judge found that the dismissal process was closely linked to the Claimant’s pregnancy and related absence. The Respondent’s reasoning did not withstand scrutiny, particularly when considered alongside internal communications and the sequence of events leading up to her dismissal.

As a result, the tribunal concluded that the Claimant had been subjected to pregnancy and maternity discrimination. It also found that her dismissal amounted to automatic unfair dismissal, because her pregnancy and pregnancy-related sick leave had played a role in the decision to terminate her employment.

At the remedy stage, the Claimant was awarded a total of £73,511.02. This included compensation for financial losses and damages for injury to feelings, reflecting the distress caused by the discriminatory treatment. The tribunal also applied a 15% uplift to the compensation, due to the Respondent’s failure to follow proper procedures, in line with the ACAS Code of Practice.

Although the tribunal found automatic unfair dismissal, it didn’t make a separate financial award in order to avoid double recovery. Nonetheless, the finding itself was significant, as it reinforced the seriousness of the Respondent’s conduct.

Pregnancy-Related Sick Leave: Discrimination in Context

The case provides a clear illustration of how pregnancy and maternity discrimination can arise in practice. Under UK law, employees are protected from unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy, pregnancy-related illness, or maternity leave. These protections apply from the beginning of pregnancy and continue through the maternity leave period.

One of the distinctive features of pregnancy discrimination law is that it does not require a comparison with another employee. It is sufficient to show that the individual was treated unfavourably because of pregnancy or a related reason.

In Farmer’s case, the tribunal found that her pregnancy-related work, combined with the abrupt shift from support to dismissal, pointed to decision-making. The Respondent’s dissatisfaction with her inability to attend the workplace, combined with the abrupt shift from support to dismissal, pointed toward discriminatory treatment.

The fact that the Respondent framed the dismissal as performance-related did not prevent the tribunal from identifying the true underlying reason. This highlights an important principle in employment law: tribunals will look beyond the stated justification for a decision and examine the real reasons behind it.

Automatic Unfair Dismissal Explained

The finding of automatic unfair dismissal is particularly important. In most unfair dismissal cases, employees must have at least two years’ continuous service to bring a claim, and the tribunal will assess whether the employer acted reasonably.

However, where dismissal is connected to pregnancy or maternity, these usual requirements do not apply. The dismissal is automatically unfair if pregnancy is a reason, even if it is not the sole reason.

In practical terms, this means that employers cannot rely on alternative explanations, such as performance issues, if pregnancy has influenced the decision in any meaningful way. The threshold for liability is therefore lower, and the protection for employees is stronger.

Read More: Discrimination Claim: Sainsbury’s Manager With Disability Wins £32,000

In this case, the tribunal concluded that pregnancy-related factors were intertwined with the Respondent’s decision to dismiss Farmer. This was sufficient to establish automatic unfair dismissal, regardless of any performance concerns that may have existed.

Flexible Working and Workplace Adjustments

Although Farmer’s claim relating specifically to her flexible working request was not upheld, the issue remains an important part of the broader narrative. Pregnant employees often require adjustments to their working arrangements, particularly where they are experiencing illness or complications.

Employers are not obliged to grant every flexible working request, but they must handle such requests reasonably and without discrimination. A refusal that is influenced by pregnancy, or by negative attitudes toward pregnancy-related absence, may still contribute to a finding of discrimination.

In this case, while the tribunal did not find a standalone breach in relation to the flexible working request, it did consider the Respondent’s response to Farmer’s circumstances as part of the overall picture. The Respondent’s apparent frustration with her absence and remote working situation reinforced the conclusion that pregnancy had influenced its actions.

What Individuals Can Do If Their Rights Are Breached

For employees, this case demonstrates the importance of understanding and asserting legal rights. When concerns arise, documenting events can be critical. Written communications, changes in treatment following pregnancy disclosure, and any evidence of negative attitudes can all play a key role in establishing a claim.

Raising the issue internally is often a necessary first step. Submitting a formal grievance allows the employer an opportunity to address the problem and can also strengthen a subsequent tribunal claim if the issue is not resolved.

Seeking legal advice at an early stage can help individuals understand their position and navigate what can be a complex process. Before bringing a tribunal claim, employees are generally required to go through ACAS Early Conciliation, which provides an opportunity to resolve disputes without formal proceedings.

If a claim proceeds to tribunal, compensation may be awarded for financial losses and injury to feelings, among other things. As this case shows, the financial consequences for employers can be significant.

Final Thoughts

The tribunal’s decision to award more than £73,000 to a video operations manager dismissed while on pregnancy-related sick leave sends a clear message about the seriousness of pregnancy and maternity discrimination in the workplace.

Read More: Employment Rights Act to Be Abolished if Elected, Claims Reform UK Spokesperson

The case demonstrates how quickly an employer’s approach can shift after a pregnancy disclosure, and how actions such as locking an employee out of work systems can contribute to a finding of unlawful treatment. It also highlights the strength of legal protections, particularly in relation to automatic unfair dismissal, where pregnancy plays a role in termination decisions.

Ultimately, the ruling serves as both a warning to employers and a reassurance to employees. When workplace decisions are influenced by pregnancy, even indirectly, tribunals are prepared to intervene and award substantial compensation.

Pregnancy-Related Sick Leave: Get Help with Redmans

If you believe your employment rights have been breached during a period of pregnancy or maternity, get in touch. Redmans Solicitors are employment experts, and following a brief chat, we can discuss your options going forward.

To get in touch now, simply:

• Phone us directly on 020 3397 3603
• Fill out our online form to request a callback