Sales Progressor dismissed after PIP following miscarriage: claims fail
A tribunal has rejected claims of unfair dismissal, pregnancy discrimination and sex discrimination brought by a Sales Progressor who was dismissed after a performance improvement plan that began shortly after her miscarriage.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Sales Progressor from 3 December 2018 to 23 July 2021.
- The claimant had a pregnancy that ended in miscarriage on 21 August 2020.
- The claimant was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan in September 2020 due to performance concerns.
- The claimant was dismissed on 23 July 2021 on grounds of incapability following a lengthy performance management process.
- The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was initially dismissed as out of time but was reinstated on reconsideration.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and the discrimination claims were not well-founded.
Timeline
-
First pregnancy scan
The claimant had a private scan confirming pregnancy, but too early to detect a heartbeat.
-
Second pregnancy scan
A scan indicated no discernible heartbeat; no interval growth from the first scan.
-
Miscarriage
The claimant's GP recorded the date of miscarriage; the pregnancy ended.
-
Decision to proceed with PIP
The respondent decided to progress a Performance Improvement Plan, outside the protected period.
-
PIP commenced
The claimant received an email attaching a Performance Improvement Plan.
-
Sickness absence due to stress
The claimant was certified unfit for work with work-related stress until 23 December 2020.
-
Occupational health report
An occupational health report documented symptoms including chest pains, vomiting, panic attacks, and weight loss.
-
Formal attendance management letter
The claimant received a letter regarding her Bradford Factor score, initiating formal attendance management.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed on grounds of incapability following a final capability meeting.
-
Claimant emailed claim form
The claimant emailed a completed claim form for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination to the tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was disabled due to stress-related symptoms, whether her unfair dismissal claim was presented in time, and whether she was discriminated against because of pregnancy, maternity, or sex.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The unfair dismissal claim was out of time and not reasonably practicable to extend. The pregnancy and sex discrimination claims were not well-founded because the performance improvement plan began after the protected period ended and the claimant was not disabled at the relevant time.
- No compensation awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- The protected period for pregnancy discrimination ends two weeks after a miscarriage, so employers can lawfully start performance management after that if it is not related to the pregnancy.
- To claim disability discrimination, you must show that a long-term physical or mental impairment had a substantial adverse effect on your daily activities at the time of the alleged discrimination.
- Unfair dismissal claims must be presented within three months of the effective date of termination, unless it was not reasonably practicable to do so.
- A performance improvement plan that begins after the protected period and is based on genuine performance concerns is unlikely to be seen as pregnancy discrimination.
A difficult return to work
The claimant, a Sales Progressor, suffered a miscarriage in August 2020. She returned to work and in September 2020 was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) due to concerns about her performance. The PIP continued through the following months, and she was eventually dismissed in July 2021 on grounds of incapability.
The tribunal found that the decision to start the PIP was made after the protected period for pregnancy had ended (two weeks after the miscarriage). The employer's concerns were about performance, not the pregnancy itself. The claimant also argued that she was disabled due to stress-related symptoms, but the tribunal concluded that the evidence did not show a long-term substantial adverse effect at the relevant time.
Time limits and procedural hurdles
A key issue was the timing of the unfair dismissal claim. The claimant emailed her claim form on 4 October 2021, but the effective date of termination was 23 July 2021 — more than three months earlier. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have presented the claim in time, so the claim was dismissed as out of time.
The discrimination claims were also dismissed. The tribunal noted that the PIP process was ongoing when the claim was filed, but the underlying complaints were not well-founded. The claimant had not shown that her treatment was because of pregnancy, maternity, or sex.
What this case shows
This case illustrates the importance of understanding time limits for tribunal claims and the need to establish the legal elements of discrimination. Even where an employee has experienced a miscarriage, performance management that begins after the protected period and is based on genuine performance issues is unlikely to be unlawful. Employers should ensure that any performance process is clearly separated from pregnancy-related matters and that they consider reasonable adjustments for any underlying health conditions, but in this case the tribunal found no unfairness or discrimination.
Similar cases
Shift team leader loses constructive dismissal claim after credibility issues
A shift team leader with 9 years' service resigned after being placed on a performance improvement plan, but the tribunal dismissed all claims, finding no breach of contract and serious credibility problems with his evidence.
19-year employee's claims dismissed as out of time despite disabilities
A bureau operator with 19 years' service had his claims for breach of contract and discrimination thrown out because they were lodged over four years after his dismissal.
Senior hairdresser with long COVID wins constructive dismissal case over part-time return refusal
A senior hairdresser with 12 years' service who resigned after her employer refused her GP-recommended phased return of two days a week has been awarded £13,699 for constructive unfair dismissal and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Pregnant physiotherapist forced out: constructive dismissal and discrimination at Barnet FC
A head sports physiotherapist was constructively dismissed after being investigated and having her grievance rejected following her pregnancy disclosure. The tribunal awarded £18,152.48.