Accountancy firm worker wins £15,000 after being sacked while pregnant
Accountancy firm worker wins £15,000 in discrimination battle after her boss told her ‘that’s my plans for you ruined’ when she revealed she was pregnant
- Kimberley Hill was sacked by 9ine Accounting Ltd after going on maternity leave
- Mrs Hill found out she was pregnant five months after joining Nottingham firm
- She said boss Russell Mason responded: ‘Well that’s my plans for you ruined’
- After being sacked, Mrs Hill and her husband later lost their family home
- Mrs Hill has now been awarded over £15,000 by an employment judge
An accountancy firm worker has won more than £15,000 in a discrimination case after her boss said ‘Well, that’s my plans for you ruined’ when she told him she was pregnant.
Kimberley Hill was left feeling ‘panicky’ and worried for her job by the comment from Russell Mason who continued to make ‘little digs’ at her, an employment tribunal heard.
When Mr Mason’s personal assistant left, he told Mrs Hill – who announced her pregnancy five months after starting the job – ‘That would have been your new office but now you will be leaving soon,’ a hearing was told.
And after she started her maternity leave early, on the advice of her midwife, she was sacked by email by her ‘egregious’ boss who said her mind hadn’t been ‘entirely’ on work.
Mrs Hill sued her employer – Nottingham based accountancy firm 9ine Accounting Limited – for pregnancy discrimination and unfair dismissal.
She has now been awarded a total of £15,995 in compensation.
Kimberley Hill sued her employer, Nottingham-based accountancy firm 9ine Accounting Limited for pregnancy discrimination and unfair dismissal. She has now been awarded a total of £15,995 in compensation
The tribunal heard that Mrs Hill started working for 9ine accounting in October 2019. In February 2020, she found out she was pregnant and told her boss.
Upon hearing her news, Mr Mason replied: ‘Well, that’s my plans for you ruined,’ the tribunal was told.
Mrs Hill told the Nottingham hearing that the comment made her feel ‘panicky,’ because she did not know whether her job or the plans that Mr Mason had for her career progression had ‘gone.’
Although Mr Mason congratulated her, there were ‘little digs, as if he was happy for her but upset about the impact of her pregnancy on him and his business,’ the tribunal heard.
Two days after when Mr Mason’s personal assistant was sacked, he told Mrs Hill: ‘That would have been your new office but now you will be leaving soon.’
Mrs Hill told the tribunal that the comment made her feel ‘on edge,’ and unsure of her future with the company.
In June 2020 she became unwell due to her pregnancy and was advised by her midwife to start her maternity leave earlier than she had intended.
After informing Mr Mason, he replied by email that he ‘understood where you are coming from,’ which she took to be an agreement to her starting her maternity leave in July.
Shortly afterwards however, in June, Mr Mason emailed Mrs Hill dismissing her with one week’s notice, the tribunal heard, claiming he had found files left at her desk.
In his dismissal email he said: ‘You started life with 9ine with such vigour and enthusiasm that it appeared you would grow with the business and become a great asset.
‘I don’t think your mind has entirely been on work when you have been in the office.’
After her maternity leave had ended, Mrs Hill struggled to find work and began receiving universal credit payments.
Her husband was made redundant in July 2020 and her family had to move in with her husband’s parents, a two-bedroom flat with three children, the tribunal heard.
She sued the firm, claiming pregnancy discrimination, unfair dismissal and failing to provide a written statement of contract.
The tribunal found that Mr Mason’s ‘principal reason’ for the decision to sack Mrs Hill was because she was pregnant and found in favour of all her claims.
Employment Judge Rachel Broughton dismissed the firm’s argument that she had been dismissed due to concerns about her performance.
The judge said: ‘There was no attempt to inform the Mrs Hill of the details of the alleged problems prior to the decision to decision. She was not told which files had not been dealt with and not told what the alleged problems with the archiving project were. There was also no disciplinary hearing with the claimant to discuss the alleged issues.’
Judge Broughton went on: ‘The issues about [Mrs Hill’s] performance were contrived to provide an excuse for terminating her employment.
‘[Mrs Hill] was pregnant and now without employment… this played a part in [she] and her husband losing their house.
‘To dismiss someone because they are to take maternity leave is significant and to do so in such an offhand manner by email, without even speaking to them about the alleged reasons and giving them a chance to respond, is particularly egregious.’
Mrs Hill was awarded £15,436 for injury to feelings and £559 for failure to provide written particulars.
A decision on a loss of earnings award will be held at a later date.
Source: Read Full Article