Unfair Dismissal and Pregnancy Discrimination

This assignment examines a legal scenario involving an employee, Jane, who believes she has been unfairly dismissed and discriminated against due to her pregnancy by her employer, Adam. A legal advisor analyzes the situation and recommends a course of action that involves investigating potential theft in the workplace. The advisor emphasizes the importance of gathering strong evidence to avoid potential legal repercussions for Adam if Jane is subsequently found to be innocent.

Legal aspect of
Business

Table of Contents
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................1
Facts related with case study..................................................................................................1
Issue to be determined............................................................................................................1
Rule and case laws..................................................................................................................1
Application.............................................................................................................................4
Conclusion..............................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................8

MAIN BODY
Facts related with case study
Jane has been appointed by Adam in his small cafeteria in London. He appoints staff of
part-time basis as well. From past two months he is observing that some money is missing from
the counter collections. Upon calling a meeting to discuss the issue of missing money, Jane
reacted differently and seems agitated and this made Adam to suspect her as person behind
stealing money from counter. To add up in his suspect ion one of the employee, Hillary from the
cafeteria told Adam that she have seen Jane acting suspiciously when she was taking an order
and told nothing else. Though this information was not sufficient but this acted as a trigger for
Adam to have stronger suspect ion over Jane. Upon this Adam told Jane to meet him in his office
next day and the fact that he wanted to talk about the missing money. On hearing this Jane got
agitated and went back to Adam and informed him that she is pregnant and will need to take
maternity leaves in coming few months.
Now, Adam is in dilemma that what to do in this current situation. He wants to dismiss
her in case it is found that she is stealing money. But he is aware of the fact that pregnant
employees mostly file a case against their employers when they dismiss them though on
reasonable grounds.
LETTER
To, Adam
Subject: Legal advise on issues relevant with significant laws and legislation.
Issue to be determined
1. Determination of the facts on whether Adam can charge Jane guilty for missing money?
2. Determination of rules related with maternity leaves and treatment of a parentage lady
and her removal on ground of gross misconduct.
3. Whether Jane can file a suit against Adam, if she is dismissed from job on charges of
stealing money when he has no actual proof of her guilty?
Rule and case laws
Case law: A person V Oswestry Equestrian Centre Limited, 2017/2018:
This case was related with dismissal of the employee Miss Alice Pearson on grounds of
redundancy. No notice was given to her not did she received any payment in lie of notice.
The claim was made by Alice that this abrupt dismissal was on the ground of her recent
1

announced pregnancy. The case was filed and trial was taken under employment tribunal.
Laws which were applied in deciding this case were:
The Equity act, 2010: Section 18: Pregnancy discrimination for work cases
 Section 136: Burden of proof
This section applies on proceeding related with contravention of sections of this act. The
burden of proof is on the person who is alleged to act in contravention of provision (Miss A
person V Oswestry Equestrian Centre Limited, 2018). If that person proves that he/she did not
contravene any provision this section does not apply to that person. If not proved the court can
hold that contravention has occurred.
Employment rights Act, 1996:
Section 94: an employee has a rights not be unfairly dismissed by his/her employer.
Section 99: unfair dismissal of an employee considered when dismissal is done on the
grounds of :- childbirth, pregnancy or additional maternity leave.
Decision of the case: in this case it was decided that dismissal of Alice was unfair and
was in contradiction of section 18 of EqA. She was not given notice and wrongfully dismissed
hence, entitled for damages for breach of contract.
Dismissal for conduct or performance reasons:
An employer can dismiss an employee of the following grounds:
 when employee is incapable of doing job as per required standards;
 employee is capable but do not have willingness to do the job accurately;
 employee have committed certain kind on misconduct, which can be in from of serious
or gross (Dismissing staff, 2018).
Gross misconduct:
Gross misconducts can be defined as an act so serious in nature that allows employer to
dismiss employee without any prior notice or pay in lies of the notice. The acts are such which
destroys the trust and confidence between employer and employee. Under gross misconduct
followings acts have been included:
 Theft, fraud and dishonesty: this includes stealing office equipment, company stock or
cash. Stealing personal belonging from colleagues.
 Offensive behavior: this covers Harassment, Bullying, Fighting, aggressive or
2

intimidating behavior etc.
 Damage to property: this includes deliberating damaging the property of employer.
 Serious incapacity or misconduct caused by an excess of alcohol or drugs at work
 Serious breach of health and safety rules such as removing or not using machinery
guards, personal protective equipment etc.
With identification of gross misconduct employer can dismiss the employee immediately
by following fair procedure. Before, this an investigation must be done by employer in the
incident and employee must be given a chance to respond prior dismissing them. The removal
can be immediate without giving any prior notice and pay in lieu thereof.
Equality Act, 2010:
Maternity
Section 72-76 of Equity act, 2010 provides rights of a pregnant employee along with leaves and
pay during her pregnancy.
 A lady in employment when gets pregnant have a rift to go no maternity leave and revive
pay during the time of the leave (Stevens, 2018).
For the present case relevant law is related with discrimination during pregnancy and same has
been discussed here:
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination: Work cases
As per section 18 of the Equity act, 2010: pregnancy discrimination means to treat a
woman unfavorably on the grounds that she is pregnant or just because she wants to take
maternity leave during protected period (Section 18: Pregnancy and maternity discrimination:
work cases, 2018). A pregnant woman need not be compared with other male employees rather
it must be shown that she is treated differently on the grounds of her pregnancy. The protected
periods start from the beginning of pregnancy and ends at 2 weeks after end of pregnancy.
Some acts related with unfair treatment are as follows:
1. dismissal during pregnancy
2. pressure to resign,
3. Selection or redundancy on grounds of pregnancy; etc.
As per the provision of Equality law it can be stated that if a pregnant employee is
dismissed on the ground of gross misconduct, employer is liable to pay her maternity pay
depending on the timing of dismissal. For getting maternity leave pay an employee must fulfill
3

following three criteria:
 She must have worked for a minimum of 26 weeks on a continuous basis, by the end of
15th week before her baby is due and this week is termed as qualifying week.
 She gets an average weekly earning are more than the lower limit of earnings for national
insurance contribution.
 She was in employment during qualifying week.
Application
Removal of an employee must be done on the basis of the grounds stated in section
Dismissal for conduct or performance reasons. Gross misconducts is one of them and stealing
falls under this category (Butler, 2016). Hence, an act of stealing cash from counter of the cafe is
gross misconducts and if Jane founds guilty of the same is liable for immediate dismissal from
the job without any prior notice and pay in lieu thereof.
With application of above decided case law and provision described in above section of
rule, in present case scenario it can be seen that Adam is anticipating to dismiss Jane on the
suspicious that she is stealing cash from the counter, though he does not have any strong
evidences to prove his claim. Now, when Jane have stated that she is pregnant; following
situation can arise and suggestions are recommended on how to handle the situation:
1. Dismiss Jane with immediate effect:
This action can be taken by Adam as immediate dismissal of Jane on mere suspicion
that she is stealing cash from the cafe which is gross misconduct on behalf of Jane. To remove
her in this way can prove to a bad idea as this can lead the unfair removal and can attract law
suit against the cafe so this idea is not suggested to Adam.
2. Fair dismissal on ground of Gross misconduct:
To prove Jane guilty, Adam must be sure on himself that she is the only one stealing the
case. He has not seen her doing the act or nor anyone caught her rad handed in the action. So the
fact is established that there no strong proof against her to prove her guilty of stealing, the
statement made by Hillary can be mere imagination or Jane was acting wired because she is
pregnant. Statement of Hillary can not be considered as an evidence against Jane and Hillary can
thee is no surety that Hillary will not deny about the fact stated buy her, if asked again. Hence,
Hillary's words can not be considered to be a strong fact for dismissal of Jane. As per the
provisions stated in above rule section an employee must be dismissed fairly on grounds of gross
4

misconduct. Before, removal of Jane on grounds of gross misconduct, strong evidences must be
collected to prove her guilty. The evidences must be such that can be relied upon and are true to
the fact. Mere a statement for another employees (Hillary) is not an indication of proving Jane
guilty for stealing. With collection of all evidences and proofs, Jane must be called and she must
be made aware of the fact that she is being charged for the missing money. She must be given a
change to prove er innocence and give her a chance to respond.
3.Pregnancy, Dismissal and burden of proof:
The fact in given scenario is not hidden that when Adam told Jane that he needs to talk to
her on issue of missing money. She responded after sometime that she is pregnant and will be
taking maternity leave in few months. With removal of Jane on grounds of gross misconduct, the
fasts is anticipated that she will definitely file law suit against Adam and his cafes that her
removal was on the grounds of pregnancy discrimination. With this a severs legal issue can be
faced by Adam. As per section 18 of the Equality Act, 2010 Jane is eligible for maternity leave
and pay and she must not be discriminated in employment. Her work efficiency must not be
compared with other employees in the cafe.
The facts are proved in the case of MISS ALICE PEARSON that her employee
dismissed her on grounds of redundancy after she announced her pregnancy at workplace. In
present scenario this will definable help Jane to make her case stronger and leaving Adam with
lesser choice (Chaly and et.al., 2017). The law suit of Alice is just one case, there are several
cases where employees have made successful claim and won the cases against their employers.
Though in this case, claim of Adam is correct that Jane was stealing but that must be dome only
if strong evidences are found against her. As per section 136 of EqA, burden of prove will be on
Adam that dismissal of Jane was done fairly and by following the procedure and no provision of
the act has been contravened. She is liable for the maternity leaves and pay if she fulfills all the
three conditions to get all maternity pay. In present case no such details of her pregnancy is
given just a statement is made by her that in few months she will take maternity leaves.
4.Finding actual culprit:
All the above alternatives are the situations which will arise when an action by Adam is
taken. One of thees will defiantly happen so it is important to find an accurate course of action to
find the culpable mind behind the missing money. Another fact which is not yet mention for the
given scenario is that determination of the actual thief. The fact is not yet considered that Jane
5

can actually be innocent so efforts must be made to fine the actual culprit behind all these thefts
of cash.
An investigation must be establishment of to find out that who is actually leaving the cash from
country (Long, 2016). If is Jane than she can be charged guilty for her actions and dismissed
with immediate effect and if she is not, then actual person behind all these thefts will be caught.
Conclusion
For the first issue of charging Jane with guilty of stealing money, it is stared that Adam
can not act in this direction, mere on his suspicion and agitating behaviour of Jane. More over
the statement of Hillary also do not add as a strong evidence to the case. So her statements of not
make any sense for decision whether Jane is guilty or not. For charging her guilty, Adam needs
to collect strong evidence which can not be question by her or any other authority, in case she
files a law suit against her dismissal.
For the second issue it has been interpreted that facts ha been determined that pregnant
lady can be dismissed on ground of gross misconduct provided that she must be charged guilty
of her actions of theft with strong evidences. With on proves she is entitled for maternity leaves
and pay. Her dismissal must not be considered as pregnancy discrimination rather in cases she
is fired, has been on the fact of her stealing on the basis of significant evidences.
In lack of the proofs, removal of Jane can go against Adam as pregnancy and maternity
discrimination y the employer and she might file a law suit as unfair dismissal and pregnancy
discrimination by her employer, Adam.
After taking in to consideration of all the facts, legal legislations and provision, all
alternative outcomes that might happen, a conclusion has been reached by the legal adviser that
in the presence case of Jane a vigilant and shrewd course of action must be planned. As an
unthoughtful can end up against Adam and instead of dismissing Jane, a law suit can be filed
against Adam by Jane. The court of action has been decided as first of all an investigation must
be set up in the cafeteria to find out the actual person behind all theses theft. After finding out
the actual culprit action against that employee must be taken.
For instance if Jane is found out to be culprit, evidences must be collected and then she
must be confronted about her action. Reasonable time and chance will be given to her to show
that she is innocent and then dismiss her fairly. Another scenes that can happen is that Jane is
found out be guilty but no evidences are present against her, she can be given a warning or
6

rather dismiss her on grounds of gross misconduct. This action must be taken by Adam
carefully as she can file a law suit against Adam on basis of either unfair dismissal from job or
pregnancy discrimination or both.
It is anticipated for the given scenario of Jane and Adam that, Dismissal of Jane must be
fairly done on the basis of strong evidences otherwise it can land up in getting summons
against Adam from the court.
7

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Butler, M., 2016. Equality and anti-discrimination law: the Equality Act 2010 and other anti-
discrimination protections. Spiramus Press Ltd.
Chaly, S and et.al., 2017. Misconduct risk, culture and supervision. Federal Reserve Bank of New
York.
Long, A. B., 2016. Employment discrimination in the legal profession: A question of ethics. U.
Ill. L. Rev. p.445.
Stevens, M., 2018. Covert monitoring versus employee privacy rights. Nursing And Residential
Care. 20(12), pp.646-648.
Online
Miss A person V Oswestry Equestrian Centre Limited. 2018. [Pdf]. Available through
:<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ab9f8f440f0b67d674799bb/
130151417_Miss_A_Parsons_v_Oswestry_Equestrian_Centre_Ltd.pdf>
Section 18: Pregnancy and maternity discrimination: work cases. 2018. [Online]. Available
through :<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/18>.
Dismissing staff. 2018. [Online]. Available through
:<https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-staff/dismissals-on-capability-or-conduct-grounds>.
8