Pregnant employee dismissed without risk assessment: discrimination and unfair dismissal
A tribunal found that VPS PVT Limited unfairly dismissed a pregnant employee and discriminated against her by failing to carry out a health and safety risk assessment. The claimant was awarded £23,823.50 in compensation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the respondent and was pregnant at the time of dismissal.
- The respondent failed to carry out a pregnancy-related health and safety risk assessment.
- The respondent refused to suspend the claimant on maternity grounds.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant without following any fair procedure.
- The respondent failed to pay the claimant's wages, holiday pay, and notice pay.
- The respondent's response was struck out for failing to comply with an unless order.
Timeline
-
Discriminatory act
The respondent failed to pay the claimant's wages, which was found to be an act of victimisation.
-
Claimant raised grievance
The claimant raised a grievance regarding her treatment, which received no reply from the respondent.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed by the respondent without any fair procedure.
-
Early conciliation started
Early conciliation began between the parties.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented her claim to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Respondent's response
The respondent presented a response defending the claim.
-
Unless order issued
Employment Judge Broughton issued an unless order requiring the respondent to disclose documents by 29 September 2022.
-
Response dismissed
Employment Judge Adkinson dismissed the respondent's response for failure to comply with the unless order.
-
Remedy hearing
The remedy hearing was held before Employment Judge Welch, who assessed compensation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against because of her pregnancy, and whether the respondent victimised her by failing to pay wages and dismissing her. It also assessed compensation for injury to feelings, unpaid wages, holiday pay, and notice pay.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant on all claims. The respondent's response was struck out for failing to comply with an unless order, meaning the claims were undefended.
The key findings were:
- The claimant was unfairly dismissed.
- The respondent discriminated against her because of sex and/or pregnancy and maternity by failing to carry out a risk assessment, refusing to suspend her on maternity grounds, and dismissing her.
- The claimant was victimised by the failure to pay wages and by dismissal.
- Claims for holiday pay, breach of contract (notice pay), and unlawful deductions from wages succeeded.
Compensation breakdown:
- Unfair dismissal: £966.40 (basic award £566.40, compensatory award £400)
- Injury to feelings: £15,000
- Holiday pay: £84.92
- Unlawful deductions: £708.00
- Notice pay: £566.40
- ACAS Code uplift (25%): £4,189.83
- Interest on injury to feelings: £2,307.95
- Total: £23,823.50
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must carry out a pregnancy-related health and safety risk assessment as soon as they are aware an employee is pregnant.
- Refusing to suspend a pregnant employee on maternity grounds when required is direct discrimination.
- Dismissing a pregnant employee without any fair procedure is likely to be both unfair dismissal and pregnancy discrimination.
- Failing to pay wages or respond to a grievance can amount to victimisation.
- Non-compliance with tribunal orders can lead to a response being struck out, resulting in a default judgment against the employer.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the serious consequences for employers who fail to follow basic legal obligations towards pregnant employees. The claimant was dismissed without any procedure, and the employer did not carry out a required health and safety risk assessment or suspend her on maternity grounds. The tribunal found that these failures amounted to direct discrimination because of pregnancy and sex, as well as victimisation for raising a grievance.
The employer also failed to pay wages, holiday pay, and notice pay, and did not respond to the claimant's grievance. When the case reached tribunal, the respondent repeatedly failed to comply with orders, leading to its response being struck out. This meant the claims were undefended, and the tribunal focused on remedy.
What the losing side could have done differently
VPS PVT Limited could have avoided this outcome by carrying out a simple risk assessment when told of the pregnancy, suspending the claimant on maternity grounds if necessary, and following a fair dismissal process. Paying wages and responding to the grievance would have prevented the victimisation finding. Engaging with the tribunal process and complying with disclosure orders would have allowed the employer to defend the claims on their merits.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that pregnancy discrimination claims can succeed even without a full hearing if the employer fails to engage. The award of £15,000 for injury to feelings reflects the distress caused by the discriminatory treatment. The 25% uplift for failing to follow the ACAS Code of Practice shows that employers who ignore best practice face higher compensation. For employees, it demonstrates that raising a grievance and pursuing a claim can lead to redress, even against an uncooperative employer.
Similar cases
Dismissed without notice and discriminated against: a double blow for a former employee
A former employee was unfairly dismissed, wrongfully dismissed without notice, and discriminated against on grounds of sex. The tribunal awarded £16,208.68, including an uplift for the employer's failure to follow the ACAS code.
Welder with 20 years' service wins disability discrimination claim but has award reduced for failing to mitigate loss
A welder who resigned after his employer failed to make reasonable adjustments for his heart condition has won his unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims. The tribunal awarded £42,334 but reduced compensation because he turned down a job offer the day after leaving.
Dismissed security guard wins unfair dismissal and victimisation claims
A former employee of Cerberus Security and Monitoring Services Ltd has succeeded in unfair dismissal and victimisation claims after being dismissed for conduct failings. Remedy is yet to be determined.
Healthcare worker dismissed after raising pregnancy concerns: tribunal finds automatic unfair dismissal
A healthcare worker was dismissed days after telling her employer she was pregnant. The tribunal awarded £26,898 for unfair dismissal, pregnancy discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.