Victory for pregnant executive whose boss called her ‘emotional’
A MOTHER told by her manager that she was being ‘very emotional and tearful’ when she was pregnant has won a discrimination case.
Addressing expectant employees with ‘belittling’ language can suggest they are not ‘fully in control’, an employment judge concluded.
The ruling came in the case of account manager Nicola Hinds, 37, who represented herself against her former employer Mitie, a leading UK facilities management company.
She was ‘inexcusably’ ignored by her boss, portrayed as ‘hormonal’ and was so badly treated after returning to work following the birth that she resigned.
Ms Hinds is now in line for compensation after a tribunal upheld claims of pregnancy discrimination and constructive dismissal.
Employment Judge Roger Tynan said the executive’s male boss had ‘stereotyped’ her as ‘an emotional, hormonal pregnant woman and that in the particular circumstances his description of her as emotional and tearful was dismissive and belittling’. The judge added: ‘The inference was she was not fully in control of her emotions because of the pregnancy and that she was making unreasonable demands as a result.’
The hearing in Cambridge was told Ms Hinds was Mitie’s regional manager for its account with Sainsbury’s supermarket.
A female manager described her in February 2020 as ‘extremely dedicated’ and as having ‘tremendous potential’.
In April that year, Ms Hinds discovered the ‘welcome but unexpected’ news that she was pregnant and informed bosses. But in October, she was ‘struggling’ with her workload after suffering two panic attacks in a week.
The tribunal found bosses handled the complaint ‘ineptly’.
Her male manager, Nav Kalley, did not respond to her but sent a ‘short, unsympathetic and insensitively’ email to a colleague.
He wrote: ‘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 supportive in helping her manage her workload.’
The hearing was told that after returning to work, an interview in June 2021 to discuss Ms Hinds’s needs was ‘inadequate’ and a risk assessment was not carried out. She resigned in September.
Judge Tynan said: ‘She was experiencing significant workrelated stress in the advanced stages of her pregnancy, felt overwhelmed, was worried about letting others down but equally concerned that she might become seriously unwell.
‘Rather than genuinely wanting to support her as he professed, Mr Kalley instead wanted [Mitie] 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.’
Ms Hinds, from Doncaster, said after the tribunal: ‘My decision to go it alone was not just to rectify the unimaginable pain and suffering they had put me through but also to give hope to all the other new and expectant mothers out there.’
Joeli Brearley, from campaign group Pregnant Then Screwed said: ‘This was David vs Goliath, a new mother taking on a powerful company. The courage and resilience to do that is immense.’
Last week, a tribunal ruled that calling a woman glamorous at work risks ‘belittling’ them and could make them seem ‘less serious and professional’. It came in the case of lawyer Jennifer Campbell, 50, who tried to sue employer Waltham Forest London Borough Council for discrimination.
‘His description was belittling’