Trainee optician fired for taking leave after miscarriage awarded £14k at tribunal

Panel rules dismissal was unfair and discriminatory as experts call the case a ‘classic example of pregnancy discrimination’

The Lincoln tribunal concluded that Ellis Taylor’s dismissal was both unfair and discriminatory because of her pregnancy.

Taylor had been signed off work by her GP for one week after experiencing a miscarriage and was “struggling to come to terms” with it, the tribunal heard. Despite this, her employer, Bingham & Young Optical, terminated her contract.

The company argued that her dismissal was unrelated to her miscarriage, citing performance issues and a failure to adhere to the dress code as reasons for the decision.

Background

Taylor began working as a trainee dispensing optician at Bingham & Young Opticians in January 2022. 

In February, a colleague, Hayley Shaw, mentioned that Taylor's choice of a “fluffy jumper” breached the company’s dress code, but the issue was never raised again.

On 2 March, Taylor mistakenly ordered a pair of lenses for a patient, which cost £120 instead of £32, an error she attributed to insufficient guidance. 

Chaz Uppal, Taylor’s boss and a director of the company, complained that she had cost the business “hundreds of pounds”. The tribunal found this to be “clearly an exaggeration”. 

Taylor had offered to cover the cost, but Uppal had told her it was not an issue, saying: “We will just need to be more careful next time. Thanks.”

On 24 May, Taylor told Uppal she had pain and discomfort in her abdomen, and might need some time off. 

Shortly afterwards, she sought medical advice from a doctor and was told she needed an urgent ultrasound to check for an ectopic pregnancy. 

Taylor informed Uppal that she was pregnant on 9 June, and he responded: “Hi Ellis, thanks for letting me know. I have just picked up your message. As discussed yesterday we have your probation period review booked for next Tuesday. We can discuss it then as I am in clinics all day. There is an email questionnaire to be completed before Tuesday. It’s in the Bingham Young inbox. If you could start working through it. Thanks Chaz.”

The next day, Taylor felt unwell at work, and was referred to the early pregnancy unit, where she was told to go home and rest. 

She texted Uppal, saying: “Hi Chaz, I’m so sorry I had to leave today. I’ve spoken to both my GP and the early pregnancy unit and both have said that I need to rest for the next few days in case it’s a threatened miscarriage so unfortunately I won’t be able to come in tomorrow, I’m really sorry.”

On 13 June, a scan revealed Taylor may have miscarried, necessitating further blood tests. 

Taylor’s probationary review took place on 14 June, without any witness present or notes taken at the meeting. 

Uppal extended her probationary period by three months without specifying the areas she needed to improve. 

The miscarriage was confirmed on 15 June, and Taylor was signed off work by her GP. Despite this, she attended work on 16 June and informed Uppal the following day that she had miscarried and was struggling emotionally. 

Uppal expressed sympathy but terminated her employment later that day, citing “complaints from customers”, which the tribunal found to be fabricated. 

Panel’s comments

Employment judge Hutchinson and the panel ruled Taylor faced discrimination during her pregnancy and was dismissed because of miscarriage-related absence, not because of customer complaints.

They believed Taylor was “extremely upset” about her dismissal because it was “clear to her that the only reason that she was being dismissed was because of the time off that she was taking because of her miscarriage”. 

“We are satisfied that the incident has affected her self esteem, her confidence and her feelings of self worth, and her unjustified dismissal has caused her considerable upset,” they added.

They believed Uppal’s claims of poor performance were him “retrospectively looking for an excuse for dismissing Taylor”. 

The tribunal found that aside from minor issues relating to dress code and ordering the lenses, Uppal was satisfied with Taylor’s performance, and they did not believe that she was sacked because of these occurrences. 

Expert comments

Karen Jackson, managing director of didlaw, said the case was a “classic example of pregnancy discrimination, where the attitude of the employer appears to be that pregnancy is a problem for them”. 

She warned employers that tribunals would “not hesitate to find in favour of women who are treated unfavourably and/or dismissed for reasons related to pregnancy and maternity” and would “slap down hard on an employer that retrospectively attempts to create an evidence trail to cover a discriminatory dismissal”. 

“There was no doubt in the tribunal’s judgment that the pregnancy and related illness was the real reason for the dismissal,” Jackson added. 

She said the legislation that protected against pregnancy and maternity discrimination was “vital” for women’s rights in the workplace. “Women do not have a choice about who can and will give birth, but sadly many employers view this as a burden and a disruption,” she said.

“The law provides for additional protections during the protected period (and via sex discrimination laws when the protected period is over) because it is a fact that women at work are treated less favourably when they start a family or add to it. It is also more difficult for a pregnant woman or new mother to find work during pregnancy or immediately following childbirth and so quite rightly the law provides additional protections.” 

Danielle Ayres, employment partner at Primas Law, pointed out that the law was not as far reaching around miscarriages as it was around pregnancy and maternity leave. 

“If a miscarriage happens during the first 24 weeks of a pregnancy, there is no entitlement to leave or pay. The law does, however, recognise that (while some women may want to return to work quickly) for a period of time following a miscarriage, an employee may need time off to recover, both physically and emotionally, or to attend appointments,” she explained. 

Ayres urged businesses to consider offering time off to an employee in these circumstances, noting that some employers have miscarriage or baby loss policies in place that set out rights and time off offered. This should be “recorded as ‘pregnancy related’ and recorded separately from other sickness absences”, she said. “It should not be used against the employee in any absence-related or disciplinary process when it comes to counting up absence levels.”

Credit: peoplemanagement.co.uk