Care home support worker wins whistleblowing and pregnancy discrimination claims
A support worker who raised COVID-19 safety concerns was put on a performance improvement plan and later dismissed. The tribunal found she suffered detriment for whistleblowing and was discriminated against when pregnant.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Support Worker from 17 October 2019 to 9 October 2020.
- She made protected disclosures on 4 April 2020 and 22 August 2020 about COVID-19 breaches and safeguarding.
- Her probation was extended on 24 April 2020, which the tribunal found was due to her whistleblowing.
- A workplace investigation was instigated on 7 July 2020, also found to be due to her whistleblowing.
- The claimant was dismissed for conduct reasons, not for whistleblowing.
- She succeeded in claims of pregnancy discrimination and harassment related to sex.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as a Support Worker at Little Belsteads care home.
-
First protected disclosure
Claimant reported breaches of COVID-19 restrictions and a YP being asked to keep secrets.
-
Probation extended
Claimant's probation was extended by one month, found to be due to her whistleblowing.
-
Probation passed
Claimant's probation was signed off, confirming permanent employment.
-
Workplace investigation started
A wide-ranging investigation was launched after a complaint from a YP, found to be due to whistleblowing.
-
Performance Improvement Plan issued
Claimant was placed on a PIP for 12 weeks.
-
Beach trip incident
Claimant was not given a risk assessment for a beach trip in hot weather, constituting pregnancy discrimination.
-
Second protected disclosure
Claimant reported concerns about a YP not wearing a mask properly.
-
Discriminatory remark about part-time work
R3 told claimant she could only become a senior if she returned full-time after maternity leave.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for conduct reasons after a brief meeting.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was subjected to detriment because of her protected disclosures about COVID-19 breaches and safeguarding, and whether she suffered pregnancy discrimination and harassment related to sex.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld claims of whistleblowing detriment against the employer and three individuals, as well as pregnancy discrimination and harassment. The claimant's unfair dismissal claim failed because the dismissal was for conduct, not whistleblowing.
Compensation awarded:
- Injury to feelings for PIP detriment: £4,500 plus 15% ACAS uplift (£675) and interest (£1,521.39) = £6,696.39
- Injury to feelings for unfair investigation/dismissal process: £4,000 plus 20% ACAS uplift (£800) and interest (£1,339.80) = £6,139.80
- Total: £12,836.19
Lessons & takeaways
- Making a protected disclosure about safety breaches can trigger retaliation even if the employer later claims performance issues.
- Pregnant employees are entitled to risk assessments and adjustments; failing to provide them can amount to discrimination.
- Employers should not extend probation or start investigations in direct response to whistleblowing.
- A 10% to 25% ACAS Code uplift can significantly increase compensation if the employer fails to follow proper procedures.
- Individual managers can be held personally liable for whistleblowing detriment.
A care worker who spoke up
A support worker at a care home run by The Belsteads Group Ltd. raised concerns about COVID-19 breaches and a vulnerable person being asked to keep secrets. Instead of addressing her concerns, the employer extended her probation and later launched a wide-ranging investigation. The tribunal found these actions were directly because of her whistleblowing.
Pregnancy discrimination added to the mix
The claimant was also pregnant during her employment. She was not given a risk assessment for a beach trip in hot weather, and a manager told her she could only become a senior if she returned full-time after maternity leave. The tribunal upheld her claims of pregnancy discrimination and harassment related to sex.
What the employer did wrong
The employer mishandled the performance improvement plan and the disciplinary process. The tribunal noted that the employer failed to follow the ACAS Code of Practice, leading to a 15-20% uplift on the injury to feelings awards. The claimant's dismissal was for conduct, not whistleblowing, so her unfair dismissal claim failed. But the detriment claims succeeded against both the company and individual managers.
Why this case matters
This case shows that whistleblowing protections extend beyond dismissal to any detrimental treatment, such as extending probation or launching investigations. It also highlights that pregnancy discrimination can take subtle forms, like failing to provide risk assessments. For employees, it reinforces the importance of documenting concerns and seeking advice early. For employers, it is a reminder to handle whistleblowing and pregnancy issues carefully, with proper procedures and without retaliation.
Similar cases
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.
Pregnant employee dismissed by text message: tribunal awards £30,000
A tribunal has awarded nearly £30,000 to a pregnant employee who was dismissed by text message after complaining about derogatory comments and a failure to provide support with lifting.
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.