HM Revenue & Customs has been ordered to pay out almost £30,000 after sacking a woman because she was pregnant.
Cheryl Young, a former admin assistant at the government body’s Lanarkshire contact centre, was dismissed in April 2019 - just weeks after telling bosses she was expecting.
Read more: Unfair sacking payout for Argyll and Bute social worker Melani Erlank who claimed boss was a bully
Ms Young was coming to the end of her probationary period with the body and had suffered a number of absences due to a string of personal difficulties including a miscarriage, her mother becoming terminally ill and problems caring for her autistic son.
Bosses had expressed a willingness to try to help her stay on in her role until she revealed her pregnancy.
She has now won her case for pregnancy discrimination and victimisation at an employment tribunal, securing an award of £29,197.
Employment judge Shona Maclean found that Ms Young’s pregnancy had a “significant influence” on her boss’s decision-making and “willingness to persevere with supporting the claimant through what had already been a challenging and difficult probationary year”.
The judge added: “The Tribunal concluded that [HMRC] failed to show that the claimant’s dismissal was in no sense whatsoever on the grounds of pregnancy.”
The tribunal heard that Ms Young, from East Kilbride, began working at HMRC’s Bathgate centre in June 2018 and was placed on an apprenticeship programme at the same time.
She has a young son who is autistic so made suitable childcare arrangements for him.
However, shortly after, she was told that her team would be moving to the East Kilbride centre and so changed her childcare arrangements as she would be closer to home.
Read more: Dundee United agree settlement with former official Priti Trivedi over unfair dismissal claim
The planned move was then cancelled a week later and her son was unable to return to the original nursery as the place had been taken.
This proved to be very stressful for the mother and resulted in a period of stress-related absence, as well as a number of absences and late starts due to the childcare issues.
She later transferred to the East Kilbride office in October 2018.
Ms Young went on to suffer a period of absence due to miscarriage in November that year, and then, in February, her mother was hospitalised with a terminal illness and she again needed time off.
The tribunal heard that the absences and late-starts meant she had exceeded the organisation’s flexitime deficit limit and had fallen behind on her apprenticeship.
She told her line manager that she was pregnant in March 2019 and was dismissed at a review of her probationary period the following month.
During the review, Ms Young told manager Lesley Anderson that it had been a “terrible year” and was not a fair representation of her.
Judge Maclean stated: “The Tribunal felt that it was significant that until the claimant announced her pregnancy in March 2019, [managers] were supportive of extending the apprenticeship and of the claimant’s need to use flexitime to accompany her mother for treatment which resulted temporarily in the claimant exceeding the flexitime deficit limit.
“There was no suggestion at that point that either of these supportive measures would be used against her when her probation was reviewed.
“In the Tribunal’s view, factors relating to the claimant’s pregnancy were operating on Ms Anderson’s mind during the decision-making process.”
Read more: STUC faces further payout to ex-worker in victimisation and unfair dismissal case
A spokesman for HMRC said: “We are sorry for the distress caused in this case and are reviewing the judgment to consider what lessons can be learnt for the future.
“HMRC is committed to treating all our staff fairly and with consideration at all times.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel