Genetic Director's constructive dismissal claim over pregnancy exclusion rejected
A Genetic Director who resigned after feeling excluded from strategic decisions during her pregnancy has lost her constructive unfair dismissal and discrimination claims. The tribunal found the employer's actions were not because of her pregnancy.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #maternity-and-pregnancy-rights
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #unfair-dismissal
- #constructive-dismissal
- #exclusion-from-strategic-decisions
- #website-launch
- #laboratory-change
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Genetic Director from 30 June 2014.
- She discovered she was pregnant in April 2020 and was hospitalised with seizures in June 2020.
- Professor Wishart had been mandated by the Board in 2019 to recruit a Senior Genetics Advisor.
- He approached Professor Beggs on 16 June 2020, unaware of the claimant's pregnancy.
- The claimant was not involved in confidential discussions about a potential change of laboratory until 16 November 2020.
- She resigned on 14 February 2021, citing breaches of contract.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started employment as Genetic Director with Check4Cancer Ltd.
-
Board mandated recruitment of Senior Genetics Advisor
The Board tasked Professor Wishart with recruiting a more senior geneticist to the Clinical Advisory Board.
-
Claimant discovered pregnancy
Claimant learned she was pregnant, with due date 18 January 2021.
-
Claimant disclosed pregnancy to manager
Claimant informed Louise Mills of her pregnancy and was hospitalised with seizures.
-
Professor Wishart approached Professor Beggs
Professor Wishart contacted Professor Beggs about joining the Clinical Advisory Board, unaware of the pregnancy.
-
New website launched
The new Check4Cancer website went live; claimant felt excluded from the process.
-
Claimant raised concerns about MyBreastRisk webpage
Claimant noted missing warning information on the MyBreastRisk page.
-
Claimant informed of potential lab change
Professor Wishart copied claimant into an email about a possible move to Professor Beggs' laboratory.
-
Maternity leave commenced
Claimant started her maternity leave.
-
Claimant resigned
Claimant resigned by letter, citing breaches of contract.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed, subjected to detriments for making a protected disclosure, or discriminated against because of pregnancy or pregnancy-related illness.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all complaints of constructive unfair dismissal, detriment for making a protected disclosure, and pregnancy discrimination.
The key reasons were:
- The decision to recruit a Senior Genetics Advisor was made before the claimant disclosed her pregnancy and was unrelated to it.
- The claimant was not excluded from strategic decisions because of her pregnancy; rather, the timing of meetings and her maternity leave meant she was not involved in some discussions.
- The claimant's concerns about the MyBreastRisk test were not a protected disclosure as she did not reasonably believe it showed a breach of legal obligation.
- The employer's actions did not amount to a repudiatory breach of contract, so there was no constructive dismissal.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you feel excluded at work during pregnancy, gather evidence that the exclusion is linked to your pregnancy, not just to timing or operational decisions.
- Constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach of contract by your employer; feeling sidelined is not enough unless it breaches an express or implied term.
- To rely on whistleblowing protection, you must show you reasonably believed the information tended to show a prescribed type of wrongdoing, such as a breach of legal obligation.
- Employers can make strategic decisions without involving every employee, even during pregnancy, as long as the decision is not motivated by the pregnancy.
What this case shows in practice
A Genetic Director with seven years' service discovered she was pregnant in April 2020 and was hospitalised with seizures in June 2020. She later felt excluded from key decisions, including the recruitment of a Senior Genetics Advisor and the launch of a new website. She resigned in February 2021, claiming constructive dismissal, pregnancy discrimination, and whistleblowing detriment.
The tribunal carefully examined each of her complaints. It found that the decision to recruit a senior advisor was made by the Board in 2019, before her pregnancy was known. The approach to Professor Beggs in June 2020 was made without knowledge of her pregnancy. Her exclusion from the website launch and other strategic matters was due to timing and her maternity leave, not because she was pregnant.
What the losing side could have done differently
While the employer won, the case highlights the importance of clear communication. The claimant felt sidelined, and the tribunal noted that better inclusion in meetings and clearer explanations of decisions might have avoided the dispute. However, the employer's actions were found to be within the range of reasonable responses, and the tribunal emphasised that it is not for the tribunal to substitute its own view on operational decisions.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that not every exclusion during pregnancy amounts to discrimination. Employees must show that the treatment was because of pregnancy, not just that it happened during pregnancy. For constructive dismissal, there must be a fundamental breach of contract – feeling undervalued or excluded is not enough. The tribunal also clarified that whistleblowing claims require a reasonable belief in a prescribed wrongdoing, which was not present here.
Similar cases
Senior contracts manager resigned after being asked to carry out repair work: constructive dismissal claim fails
A senior contracts manager who resigned after being instructed to carry out a repair job for Kier failed to prove he was dismissed or that he made protected disclosures. The tribunal found he resigned voluntarily and his race discrimination claims were out of time or unsubstantiated.
Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing claims dismissed as out of time
An employment tribunal struck out a Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing detriment and automatically unfair dismissal claims, leaving only an ordinary unfair dismissal claim to proceed. The tribunal also refused the employer's bid to strike out the remaining claim due to the claimant's conduct.
Threatening emails and abuse of witnesses: claim struck out as vexatious
A former employee who sent threatening emails to colleagues and called a witness a liar outside the tribunal room had his unfair dismissal claim struck out. The tribunal said a fair trial was no longer possible.
Staff nurse's constructive dismissal claim over whistleblowing fails
A tribunal has dismissed all claims brought by a Band 5 staff nurse against Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, including constructive dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, and discrimination on grounds of race, age, and religion.