A mother who was stereotyped as an emotional pregnant woman by her manager and did not receive a risk assessment ahead of her return from maternity leave has won a constructive dismissal claim against facilities management giant Mitie.
Claimant Ms Hinds, who worked on the company’s contract with Sainsbury’s, was not properly supported by her manager, Mr Kalley, before or after her maternity leave. An employment tribunal found he effectively wanted her out of the way as soon as possible.
Hinds, a regional account manager, found out she was pregnant in April 2020 and informed Kalley and another manager, Ms Harper, of the news the following month.
Pregnancy employment tribunals
Worker who ‘had baby at wrong time’ wins claim
Over half of women face maternity discrimination
Pregnant worker given fewer shifts was discriminated against
The company did not carry out a risk assessment during her pregnancy, which it sought to explain by pointing to a lack of communication between Kalley and HR business partner Ms Young over who was responsible for doing so.
Hinds expressed several concerns in an email to Kalley in October 2020, which she claimed were ignored by him and not dealt with in line with the company’s policies. She said she had experienced panic attacks, disrupted sleep and concerns that she might become unwell with work-related stress or anxiety because she was “really struggling” with aspects of her role.
She claimed that the organisation was already aware that she was stressed as a result of alleged poor behaviour by a Sainsbury’s employee she interacted with on a regular basis.
Kalley emailed Young on 16 October 2020 suggesting that the prospect of taking unpaid leave before her maternity leave should be raised with the claimant.
The email 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.”
The employment tribunal judge found that this email had stereotyped Hinds as an “emotional, hormonal pregnant woman” and that his description of her as “emotional and tearful” was “dismissive and belittling”.
The email indicated that Kalley was frustrated with the claimant, who he perceived as “a problem, pregnant employee who was inconveniencing him”.
The judgment says: “Rather than genuinely wanting to support the claimant as he professed, Mr Kalley instead wanted the respondent to be seen to be supportive of her in circumstances where he effectively wanted her out of the way as soon as possible so that others could step up in her place.
“Mr Kalley’s proposed approach to the situation was not only significantly focused upon his own needs and interests in the matter, more pertinently it was not legally compliant and did not reflect the respondent’s own documented guidance.”
The company did not carry out a risk assessment ahead of her return from maternity leave in 2021, and Hinds claimed that Kalley did not respond to an email that asked for structured support with her return to work.
The tribunal found that the failure to carry out a risk assessment and Kalley’s lack of effective response to the claimant’s emails breached the trust and confidence Hinds held in her employer and contributed to her resignation in September 2021.
He also failed to respond to her queries about her maternity plans and pay entitlement.
Employment judge Roger Tynan said: “Whether through a lack of relevant training or a lack of thought and attention, or because he failed to prioritise such issues or simply assumed that others would take responsibility for them, Mr Kalley failed to ensure that the organisation discharged its responsibilities to the claimant.”
The tribunal dismissed Hinds’ discrimination claims relating to Kalley failing to have one-on-one meetings or a performance review with her, a payroll error resulting in her car allowance being underpaid, and allegations that she was pressured to take a short period of maternity leave.
Compensation will be decided at a further hearing.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
A Mitie spokesperson said the company would not comment on individual cases.
HR business partner opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more HR business partner jobs
