Probationary dismissal after miscarriage: tribunal finds no discrimination
A Quality Improvement Manager dismissed while on probation after her miscarriage lost her unfair dismissal and discrimination claims. The tribunal found the decision was based on genuine performance concerns and a breakdown in working relationships, not pregnancy.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #miscarriage
- #pregnancy-related-sickness
- #probationary-period
- #performance-concerns
- #breakdown-of-working-relationship
- #grievance-procedure
Key facts
- The claimant suffered a miscarriage on 3 October 2021 and was signed off work for two weeks.
- Upon her return, her line manager raised performance concerns that had emerged during her absence.
- The claimant's probationary period was extended by three months on 15 November 2021.
- The claimant's employment was terminated on 28 February 2022 for failure to complete probation.
- The tribunal found that the decision to dismiss was due to a breakdown in working relationships and performance issues, not pregnancy or miscarriage.
Timeline
-
Claimant started employment
Claimant appointed as Quality Improvement Manager, subject to a 6-month probationary period.
-
Positive feedback on work
Mr Wooff reviewed a peer observation form and stated it looked 'great'.
-
3-month probation review
Claimant graded competent in most areas; no significant concerns raised.
-
Miscarriage
Claimant's pregnancy ended by miscarriage; she was hospitalised and signed off for two weeks.
-
Claimant informed manager of miscarriage
Claimant advised Ms Botterill of her miscarriage.
-
Mr Wooff's critical email
Mr Wooff sent a detailed email to Ms Botterill criticising the claimant's data accuracy, stating he had lost confidence in her data.
-
Claimant returned to work
Claimant returned from sick leave; last day of protected period was 17 October.
-
Return-to-work meeting
Ms Botterill raised performance concerns; tribunal found this was inappropriate timing.
-
Mr Wooff's detailed email to claimant
Mr Wooff sent a lengthy email questioning the claimant's data, despite having approved it in July.
-
6-month probation review
Probationary period extended by three months due to performance concerns.
-
Decision to dismiss
Ms Botterill told HR she would not confirm claimant in post; a meeting was scheduled for next day but postponed due to grievance.
-
Claimant submitted grievance
Claimant's lawyers sent a grievance alleging pregnancy discrimination.
-
Claimant announced second pregnancy
Claimant informed respondent she was pregnant again and requested a new line manager.
-
Dismissal
Claimant's employment terminated for failure to complete probationary period.
-
Combined appeal hearing
Appeal against dismissal and grievance appeal heard together.
-
Appeal outcome
Appeal rejected; tribunal noted delay in providing outcome.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was discriminated against because of pregnancy or maternity, victimised for raising grievances, or automatically unfairly dismissed due to pregnancy-related reasons, or whether the dismissal was for genuine performance and relationship breakdown reasons.
The outcome
The tribunal found that BPP University Ltd did not discriminate against the claimant on grounds of pregnancy or maternity, nor did it victimise her or unfairly dismiss her. The key reasons were:
- The performance concerns raised after her return from sick leave were genuine and not a pretext for discrimination.
- The decision to extend probation and later dismiss was based on a breakdown in working relationships and performance issues, not her miscarriage or pregnancy.
- The grievance and appeal processes, though delayed, were not tainted by discrimination.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Probationary employees can be dismissed for genuine performance or relationship issues, even if they have recently suffered a miscarriage or are pregnant, provided the employer's reasons are not discriminatory.
- Employers should be careful about the timing of raising performance concerns after a pregnancy-related absence, but if the concerns are genuine and well-documented, they can still justify dismissal.
- Raising a grievance does not automatically protect an employee from dismissal if there are independent, non-discriminatory reasons for the decision.
- Documenting performance issues before and after a protected period can help employers show that the decision was not discriminatory.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the challenges faced by employees on probation who experience pregnancy-related illness. The claimant, a Quality Improvement Manager, suffered a miscarriage in October 2021 and was signed off for two weeks. Upon her return, her line manager raised performance concerns that had emerged during her absence. The tribunal found that while the timing of the return-to-work meeting was 'inappropriate', the concerns themselves were genuine and not a pretext for discrimination.
The claimant's probation was extended, and she was eventually dismissed for failing to complete the probationary period. The tribunal accepted that the decision was driven by a breakdown in working relationships and performance issues, not her miscarriage or subsequent pregnancy. The claimant's grievance and appeal were also handled, albeit with delays, but the tribunal found no evidence of victimisation.
What the losing side could have done differently
For the claimant, the outcome might have been different if she had been able to demonstrate that the performance concerns were fabricated or that the employer had treated her less favourably than a non-pregnant employee. However, the tribunal found that the employer's witnesses were credible and that the concerns were documented before and after the miscarriage. The employer, BPP University Ltd, could have handled the return-to-work meeting more sensitively, but the tribunal did not find this to be discriminatory.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case serves as a reminder that not every dismissal following a pregnancy-related absence will be automatically unfair or discriminatory. Employers can still dismiss probationary employees for genuine performance or relationship reasons, provided they can show that the decision was not tainted by discrimination. For employees, it underscores the importance of gathering evidence that the employer's stated reasons are a pretext for discrimination, which was not established here.
Similar cases
Catering supervisor with depression: disability discrimination over grievance timing and probation termination
A catering supervisor with depression won over £30,000 after a tribunal found his employer failed to make reasonable adjustments by holding a disciplinary hearing before concluding his grievance and by ending his probation without further extension.
Senior HR manager's constructive dismissal claim dismissed: resignation was for better job
A senior HR manager who resigned after accepting a higher-paid job failed to prove constructive unfair dismissal or discrimination. The Birmingham tribunal found no breach of contract by National Highways Ltd.
Attendance Officer dismissed in restructure: redundancy process upheld despite grievances
A tribunal has ruled that an Attendance Officer with 10 years' service was fairly dismissed by Wokingham Borough Council and LDBS Frays Academy Trust following a redundancy selection process, rejecting claims of race discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Constructive dismissal claim fails after informal complaints not pursued as grievances
An Operational Support Grade at HMP Garth who resigned after alleging bullying and poor complaint handling lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably and the complaints were not formal grievances.