Pregnancy Discrimination – HR Exec Sent Laughing Emojis By Boss After Being Made Redundant Wins £21k

In a recent Employment Tribunal case, a pregnant HR executive who was sent a line of laughing emojis by her manager after she was made redundant has been awarded more than £21,000 in compensation.

The case highlights the challenges faced by expectant mothers in the workplace.

Ms M Rezvaniv Ahro Scientific Publishing Ltd and Dr A Yaro: 8000512/2023

Case background

Ms Rezvani (the Claimant) began working at AHRO Scientific Publishing (First Respondent) in February 2023.

The business was managed by the principal shareholder, Dr A Yaro (Second Respondent), who despite not holding the official title of director within the company, adopted the title of ‘director-general’. Additionally, he often referred to himself as ‘Kalifa,’ which in Arabic denotes a ruler or a person in a position of authority.

Concerns regarding the company’s finances came to the fore in mid-2023 after employees, including Ms Rezvani, experienced delays in receiving their salaries. Some employees were not paid at all in August 2023. Dr Yaro informed the Claimant on numerous occasions that the company wasn’t making any money, and that he was looking for investment.

In September 2023, the Claimant and other employees were made redundant without proper notice or a fair redundancy process. This occurred after Dr Yaro had informed Ms Rezvani that he needed to appoint onsite directors and enquired as to whether she was interested in the role. In response, Ms Rezvani stated that she didn’t want the position and informed the Second Respondent that she was pregnant.

On 9th September, Dr Yaro sent an email to Ms Rezvani requesting the circulation of a notice to all staff members. The message conveyed that “a decision has been taken that staffs are made redundant for the next six weeks [sic]” with the exception of a select few. Furthermore, it was stated that employees “who worked in August would be paid after the modality of share sales have been completed”.

Among those who were to remain employed was an individual involved in care agency operations, an area where the Claimant had previously made significant contributions and received commendation.

Upon being tasked with notifying other employees about their redundancy, Ms Rezvani believed that she was still employed by the company. An interpretation which the Employment Tribunal agreed with.

The Claimant contacted Dr Yaro on 10^th September with several questions regarding the criteria for redundancy and the meaning behind the “six weeks” timeframe. She also highlighted the legal entitlements of all employees to a notice period and redundancy compensation, emphasising the necessity for a legitimate procedure.

The Second Respondent replied that the employees would be “recalled after six weeks”. Concerning this, the Tribunal stated that this was not supported by any clause in the company’s employment contracts.

Ms Rezvani then started to have concerns about her employment status. On 12^th September, she sent an email to Dr Yaro: “If I did not tell you that I am pregnant, you would not think about making me redundant”. This email received no reply.

The following day, the Claimant requested her pay records from Dr Yaro and asked him to pay the accountant so that P45 forms could be issued. Dr Yaro’s response indicated that the company was unable to pay the accountant.

There was no further communication until 22^nd September when Dr Yaro requested the return of Ms Rezvani’s office key via WhatsApp. Ms Rezvani responded affirming her status as an employee and sought a meeting with the new management. Dr Yaro dismissed the request, stating that the management would not engage with any staff individually and declined to forward her contact information to them.

Ms Rezvani insisted on waiting for direct contact from the new management regarding the key. Dr Yaro’s reply was a string of seven laughing emojis.

Convinced that her employment had come to an end, Ms Rezvani told the Tribunal how the laughing emojis and the exchanges from 9^th to 22^nd September had led to feeling distressed and confused. She was especially concerned by the prospect of facing discrimination in future job applications due to her pregnancy.

Tribunal decision

The Tribunal’s decision hinged on the principle that pregnancy should not be a factor in the decision-making process regarding employment status. The ruling underscored the legal protections in place for pregnant employees, which are designed to safeguard them from discriminatory practices.

The Tribunal ruled in favour of the Claimant. It determined that the termination of Ms Rezvani’s employment was a case of adverse treatment linked to her pregnancy. Employment Judge Lesley Murphy observed a noticeable shift in Dr Yaro’s intention to retain the Claimant after she announced her pregnancy, especially since other employees engaged in care work were not dismissed. Further, the Tribunal found that the communication from Dr Yaro was ambiguous towards the Claimant in terms of her employment status.

The Glasgow Employment Tribunal awarded Ms Rezvani £21,681.99 in damages which would be paid by the company. This amount included compensation for emotional distress, financial loss, breach of contract due to the absence of a redundancy notice period, unpaid salaries, and payment for unused holiday entitlement.

Comment

This case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of adhering to employment law and the duty of care employers have towards their employees. It highlights the need for companies to have clear policies and training in place to prevent discrimination and to handle redundancies with the sensitivity and fairness they require.