Pregnant customer service adviser denied risk assessment and supportive chair: constructive dismissal succeeds
A customer service adviser with 2 years' service was constructively unfairly dismissed after Lloyds Bank failed to carry out a pregnancy risk assessment or provide a supportive chair, and mishandled her grievance. The tribunal upheld her pregnancy discrimination and unfair dismissal claims.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #pregnancy-discrimination
- #constructive-unfair-dismissal
- #failure-to-conduct-risk-assessment
- #failure-to-provide-supportive-chair
- #grievance-handling
- #acas-code-uplift
- #last-straw
Key facts
- The claimant became pregnant in March 2020 and informed her managers in May 2020.
- The claimant repeatedly requested a pregnancy risk assessment and a supportive chair, but neither was provided.
- The claimant's pregnancy-related absences were initially recorded as unpaid and later changed.
- The claimant raised a formal grievance in September 2020, which was handled informally without proper investigation.
- The claimant resigned in September 2021 after learning that the respondent would not address her grievance.
- The tribunal found that the respondent's managers lacked training on managing pregnant employees.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as a Customer Service Adviser at Lloyds Bank.
-
Pregnancy discovered
Claimant became pregnant in or around March 2020.
-
First pregnancy-related illness
Claimant experienced bleeding at work; manager Ms King was supportive but later showed irritation.
-
Meeting with Mr Rahman
Claimant requested a pregnancy risk assessment; Mr Rahman said it was not needed until 12 weeks.
-
Second pregnancy-related absence
Claimant had a urine infection; absence was initially recorded as unpaid and non-pregnancy related.
-
Request for adjustments
Claimant asked for less time on tills and a supportive chair; neither was provided.
-
Third pregnancy-related illness
Claimant had contraction-like pains; manager Ms King made her feel guilty for being absent.
-
Conversation with Mr Chudasama
Mr Chudasama told claimant 'if nothing is wrong with your baby, you should be at work' and 'you should get used to discomfort'.
-
Grievance letter
Claimant raised a formal grievance alleging pregnancy discrimination.
-
Grievance meeting
Meeting held informally; no written outcome; claimant felt issues were not taken seriously.
-
Wellbeing meeting with Mr Thomas
Claimant discussed resigning; Mr Thomas advised her to wait until after maternity leave.
-
Maternity leave started
Claimant began maternity leave.
-
Childbirth
Claimant gave birth to her daughter.
-
Final attempt to resolve grievance
Union representative contacted Area Director; respondent indicated no intention to resolve matters.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned, citing pregnancy discrimination and failure to address her grievance.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employee was subjected to unfavourable treatment because of her pregnancy or pregnancy-related illness, and whether the employer's conduct amounted to a fundamental breach of contract entitling her to resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claims of pregnancy discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal, but dismissed the victimisation claim.
Key reasons:
- The bank failed to carry out a pregnancy risk assessment despite repeated requests.
- Managers made dismissive comments, including 'if nothing is wrong with your baby, you should be at work' and 'you should get used to discomfort'.
- The grievance was handled informally without a proper investigation or written outcome.
- The final straw was learning that the bank would not address her grievance, prompting her resignation.
Compensation will be determined at a separate remedy hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Pregnant employees have a legal right to a workplace risk assessment – employers must carry one out promptly upon being notified of pregnancy.
- Dismissive or unsupportive comments from managers about pregnancy-related absences can be evidence of discrimination.
- A formal grievance must be properly investigated and responded to in writing; informal handling can amount to a fundamental breach of contract.
- If an employer's conduct is so serious that it destroys trust and confidence, the employee may resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights how a series of seemingly small failures can add up to a successful claim for pregnancy discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal. The employee, a customer service adviser with two years' service, repeatedly asked for a pregnancy risk assessment and a supportive chair after becoming pregnant in March 2020. Neither was provided. Managers made insensitive remarks, and her pregnancy-related absences were initially recorded as unpaid, making her feel guilty for being off work.
When she raised a formal grievance in September 2020, the bank handled it informally without a proper investigation or written outcome. The final straw came a year later, when she learned through her union representative that the bank had no intention of resolving her grievance. She resigned in September 2021.
What the losing side could have done differently
Lloyds Bank could have avoided liability by taking the employee's pregnancy seriously from the start. A simple risk assessment and provision of a supportive chair would have addressed her concerns. Managers should have been trained on how to support pregnant employees and avoid dismissive language. The grievance should have been investigated properly, with a written outcome communicated to the employee.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employers cannot ignore their legal obligations to pregnant employees. The tribunal found that the bank's managers lacked training on managing pregnant workers, which contributed to the failures. For employees, it shows that a pattern of poor treatment, combined with a final 'last straw' event, can support a constructive dismissal claim even with relatively short service. The remedy hearing will determine compensation, which may include an uplift for the bank's failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures.
Similar cases
Pregnant office administrator dismissed after employer ignored risk assessment request
A tribunal awarded over £10,000 to two office administrators after finding that one was discriminated against due to pregnancy and the other unfairly dismissed. The employer failed to conduct a pregnancy risk assessment and did not provide written employment particulars.
Dismissed by email while on maternity leave: a conduct process that never happened
An account manager with 19 years' unblemished service was summarily dismissed by email while on maternity leave, with no investigation or disciplinary hearing. The tribunal awarded £37,310.
Pregnancy and maternity dismissal: default judgment leads to £15,000 award
A former employee won automatic unfair dismissal and pregnancy/maternity discrimination claims after The Blurt Foundation failed to respond. The tribunal awarded £15,093.21, including an uplift for breaching the Acas Code.
Dismissed while pregnant: automatic unfair dismissal and ACAS uplift
A makeup specialist was automatically unfairly dismissed because of her pregnancy. The tribunal awarded over £40,000 including an ACAS code uplift and injury to feelings.