Paralegal dismissed while pregnant: redundancy that failed to consult fairly
A paralegal with 3.5 years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against due to pregnancy when her employer made her redundant without proper consultation or considering alternative roles. The tribunal awarded £18,792.26.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- Miss Yasin was employed as a paralegal from 4 December 2017 until 16 April 2021.
- She had two consecutive maternity leaves and announced a third pregnancy in January 2021.
- The respondent decided to close the cavity wall insulation files, leading to redundancy.
- Miss Yasin was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 18 March 2021.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair due to inadequate consultation and failure to consider alternative employment.
- The tribunal also found pregnancy discrimination because her pregnancy played a part in the dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Miss Yasin commenced employment as a paralegal in the CWI department.
-
First maternity leave started
Miss Yasin began maternity leave for her first child.
-
Second maternity leave started
Miss Yasin began consecutive maternity leave for her second child.
-
Scott Nolan joined
Scott Nolan was recruited as a Senior Litigation Executive.
-
Return from maternity leave
Miss Yasin returned to work in the first week of November 2020.
-
Furloughed
Miss Yasin was furloughed due to lack of work and COVID-19 concerns.
-
Announced third pregnancy
Miss Yasin informed the respondent of her third pregnancy.
-
CWI files deemed unviable
Mr Nolan reported that CWI claims were not successful, leading to decision to close files.
-
Informed of redundancy
Mrs Abbott called Miss Yasin to inform her she was being made redundant.
-
Consultation meeting
A redundancy consultation meeting was held.
-
Dismissal confirmed
Miss Yasin received a letter confirming her dismissal by reason of redundancy.
-
Employment terminated
Miss Yasin's employment ended after notice period.
-
Appeal hearing
Miss Yasin's appeal against dismissal was heard.
-
Liability hearing
The tribunal heard the case over three days.
-
Liability judgment
The tribunal found unfair dismissal and pregnancy discrimination.
-
Remedy hearing
The tribunal determined compensation.
-
Remedy judgment
The tribunal awarded £18,792.26 in total compensation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the paralegal's dismissal for redundancy was unfair and whether it amounted to pregnancy discrimination, specifically whether the redundancy was genuine and whether her pregnancy influenced the decision.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim of unfair dismissal and pregnancy discrimination, but dismissed the claim of automatic unfair dismissal related to pregnancy.
Key reasons:
- The respondent failed to adequately consult with the claimant or consider her for alternative roles, including a senior litigation executive position filled by a new recruit.
- The claimant's pregnancy played a part in the decision to dismiss, as evidenced by the timing and lack of proper process.
Compensation:
- Total award: £18,792.26
- The compensatory award for financial loss was reduced by 35% (Polkey reduction) to reflect the possibility she would have been dismissed anyway.
- The award also included compensation for injury to feelings due to the discrimination.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must conduct meaningful redundancy consultations and consider alternative employment, especially when the employee is pregnant or on maternity leave.
- A genuine redundancy situation does not automatically justify a dismissal if the process is flawed or discriminatory.
- Pregnant employees are protected from discrimination; any adverse treatment linked to pregnancy can lead to significant compensation.
- Tribunals may reduce compensation if there is a chance the employee would have been dismissed even with a fair process, but this does not excuse the unfairness or discrimination.
A paralegal's redundancy during pregnancy
A paralegal with 3.5 years' service at Swift Lawyers Ltd was made redundant shortly after announcing her third pregnancy. The tribunal found that while the closure of the cavity wall insulation files was a genuine redundancy situation, the way it was handled was both unfair and discriminatory.
The employer failed to consult properly or consider alternative roles. Notably, a senior litigation executive had been recruited just months earlier, yet the claimant was not considered for that or any other position. The tribunal concluded that her pregnancy played a part in the dismissal.
What went wrong
The employer could have avoided liability by conducting a fair consultation, exploring alternatives like redeployment, and ensuring that pregnancy did not influence decisions. The lack of process and the timing—dismissal shortly after announcing pregnancy—were critical failures.
Why this matters
This case highlights that even a genuine redundancy does not excuse poor process or discrimination. Pregnant employees are entitled to be treated fairly and without bias. The 35% Polkey reduction shows that compensation can be reduced if dismissal was likely anyway, but the finding of discrimination still stands, and injury to feelings was compensated.
Similar cases
Director of Partnerships made redundant: dismissal unfair but compensation wiped out
A director of partnerships was unfairly dismissed for redundancy due to a lack of consultation, but the tribunal reduced his compensation to nil because the redundancy was inevitable. He also won £1,211 for an unlawful deduction from wages.
Head of Compliance dismissed after TUPE transfer: redundancy was a sham
A head of compliance with 9 years' service was automatically unfairly dismissed when her redundancy was driven by a TUPE transfer, not genuine redundancy. The tribunal found the employer failed to consult properly.
Operations manager with 17 years' service unfairly dismissed after flawed redundancy consultation
A Newcastle tribunal found that Angel of Corbridge Ltd unfairly dismissed an operations manager with 17 years' service by failing to disclose the selection matrix and not considering a suitable alternative role. She was awarded £12,799.
Café worker automatically unfairly dismissed for asserting right to written contract
A café worker with only six months' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after asking for a written contract. The tribunal awarded over £2,000 including injury to feelings for age discrimination.