Background of the Case:
In a recent and significant employment tribunal ruling, an employee Ms Hinds) of facilities management company, Mitie was awarded £350,000 for pregnancy discrimination after her employer treated her unfavourably when she disclosed her pregnancy. Ms Hinds was also constructively dismissed as she faced exclusion from meetings, unjustified criticism of her performance, and a failure to support her requests for reasonable adjustments. Her manager failed to carry out risk assessments during her pregnancy or prior to her returning from maternity leave, and even suggested that she take unpaid leave before her maternity leave, citing her emotional state, which the tribunal later found to be a form of stereotyping.
In my article in August 2024, I highlighted further case law relating to ‘Pregnancy Discrimination and Employer Responsibilities’ citing the risks unfavourable treatment can carry for employers.
In this case, the tribunal shared their findings, including the following email which may prove a valuable lesson in how Tribunals can view certain language or actions during judgments:
In an email to HR, the employee’s manager stated:
"I was expecting this email as Nicola has become very emotional and tearful, especially over the last week or so. I am very frustrated with this as she is certainly not overworked and we have been very supportive in helping her manage her workload … I know we have to deal with this very sensitively and I want to try and support Nicola as much as I can but we need to move this forward.”
Tribunal and Final Judgement Findings:
Ms Hinds brought her case before the Employment Tribunal, arguing that she was constructively dismissed and directly discriminated against due to her pregnancy, a violation of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal sided with her, criticising Mitie’s handling of the situation, particularly the manager’s dismissive attitude. The case was later escalated, and the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, reaffirming that Ms Hinds had been unfairly treated and subjected to stereotypical assumptions about pregnant women.
The employment tribunal judge described this email as stereotypical and belittling. It characterised Ms Hinds as an "emotional, hormonal pregnant woman," further reinforcing the discriminatory treatment she faced. The tribunal ruled that the manager’s actions were not genuinely supportive but aimed at moving her out of the workplace to make space for others.
"The inference was that she was not fully in control of her emotions because of the pregnancy and that she was making unreasonable demands as a result, when in fact she was experiencing significant work-related stress in the advanced stages of her pregnancy, had suffered two panic attacks in short succession, felt overwhelmed, was worried about letting others down but equally concerned that she might become seriously unwell."
Outcome and Compensation:
Ms Hinds was awarded £350,000 in compensation, this included loss of earnings, bonus and pension as well as injury to feelings.
Key Learnings for Employers:
- Understanding the Equality Act 2010: Employers must recognise that under the Equality Act, pregnancy and maternity are protected characteristics. Any unfavourable treatment based on these characteristics, including stereotyping pregnant employees as "emotional," is unlawful.
- Proactive Handling of Requests: Employers must handle requests for reasonable adjustments from pregnant employees in a sensitive and timely manner. In this case, Mitie’s failure to accommodate the employee’s needs led to further discrimination claims.
- Avoid Stereotyping: The language used in this case—describing the employee as "emotional and tearful"—was criticised by the tribunal for perpetuating stereotypes about pregnant women. Employers should be cautious in how they communicate about pregnant employees to avoid discriminatory assumptions.
- Documenting Decisions: Employers must carefully document all decisions relating to pregnant employees to ensure they are legally compliant. Mitie’s failure to handle internal communications sensitively contributed to the outcome of the case.
- Training and Awareness: Providing regular training on pregnancy and maternity rights is essential to avoid unintentional discrimination. In this case, the manager's actions demonstrated a lack of awareness of the legal responsibilities towards pregnant employees.
- Consulting Legal Guidance: Employers should always consult legal guidance or HR professionals when dealing with pregnancy-related issues to ensure that their actions comply with the law.
For more insights into avoiding pregnancy discrimination claims, see my previous article (https://wirehouse-es.com/discrimination/pregnancy-discrimination-and-employer-responsibilities-insights-from-scott-v-royal-sun-alliance-insurance-ltd/)
Conclusion:
The Mitie case is a powerful reminder that pregnancy discrimination remains a significant legal risk for employers. Mitie’s failure to treat the employee fairly, compounded by stereotypical views about her emotional state, resulted in a £350,000 award. Employers must ensure compliance with the Equality Act 2010, handle requests sensitively, and avoid discriminatory language to prevent similar legal and financial repercussions.
HR and employment law can be extremely tricky to navigate and where an SME may not have an in house solicitor it can prove very difficult to abide by and keep up to date with the latest employment law legislation, and ever evolving case law. Employment law issues can soon snowball if they are not dealt with effectively and limited knowledge of employment law and the various pitfalls it can throw up could leave your business or organisation exposed if you don’t follow the correct processes and procedures. If you need more information about upcoming changes or how we can help and protect your organisation please visit our website: https://wirehouse-es.com/, call us on 03333 215 005 or directly email us via: info@wirehouse-es.com.
