A pregnant saleswoman was the victim of discrimination when her colleague told her “nobody wants to see a pregnant woman”, a tribunal ruled.
Jessica Morgan, who was expecting, suggested she could give a presentation to a client when she was on the receiving end of the cruel comment from her co-worker.
Ms Morgan was told ‘nobody wants to see a pregnant woman’ give a presentation and was pressured into her giving her company car back early.
She previously had a ‘close working relationship’ with her colleague at a small sales firm that sold wood products.
However when she announced that she was pregnant, she noticed a ‘shift’ in his behaviour and he made the rude remark.
She said that she was not allowed to visit customers and to ‘focus on being a mum’.
She also claimed that her boss said he ‘wouldn’t make the mistake of hiring a woman again’ when discussing taking temporary cover.
After she left the role, an employment tribunal has now ruled that she had been the victim of pregnancy discrimination.
But, she didn’t win her case because she brought the claim too late.
However she is still in line for compensation as she was found to have been victimised by her former employer.
Ms Morgan began working as a sales manager at Panelex Wood Agency, a wood supplier based in Swansea in April 2020.
She originally earned £40,000 a year at the small business where she worked alongside Frederick Geraint Hawkes who was in charge of procurement.
The pair had a ‘close working relationship’ and were in regular contact.
In July 2023 she told Mr Hawkes that she was pregnant and she claimed that there was a ‘shift in his demeanour’ at his point and she had a sense that he thought her pregnancy was an ‘inconvenience’.
However it was found that the ‘shift’ was her anxiety increasing about being on maternity leave and her concerns about her position.
In November 2023, prior to going on maternity leave, Ms Morgan offered to assist Mr Hawkes in preparing for a presentation for a client.
He responded: “Nobody wants to see a pregnant woman Jess.”
She claims that when discussing hiring temporary cover he said he ‘wouldn’t be making the mistake of hiring a woman again’.
Mr Hawkes denied making the comment.
open image in galleryMs Morgan messaged a friend saying: “I’d walk out and start today if it was affordable ! Had some REALLT [sic] sexist comments thrown at me recently and making out I can’t do my job!
“Not allowed to visit customers anymore ‘no one wants to see a pregnant woman’ was what he said to me last week… I was upset!!”
However she felt unable to challenge the comments at the time.
Around the same time Mr Hawkes made comments about Ms Morgan being forgetful – yet the tribunal found that this was not connected to her pregnancy.
Ms Morgan began her maternity leave in January 2024 and she became anxious about her position – making jokes about ‘having her back’.
However Mr Hawkes told her to ‘focus on being a mum’.
In October 2024 they met up for a meeting in Costa to discuss her return to work where she was informed that her position no longer existed and they ‘did not know where to put her’.
During the meeting Mr Hawkes said to her ‘surely he [her partner] earns enough for you to stay at home’.
She left the meeting with the understanding that her employment would be brought to an end but she could keep her company car until Christmas and would be paid any outstanding money.
However Mr Hawkes later asked for the car back at the end of October.
Ms Morgan brought claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, pregnancy discrimination, sex discrimination and victimisation to an employment tribunal in Swansea.
The victimisation claim was successful as was the pregnancy discrimination, however the latter was dismissed as it was brought out of time.
The other claims were all dismissed.
A hearing to determine her compensation will be made at a later date.
Employment Judge Alys Williams said: ” In many ways therefore this is a sad case and it is unfortunate that the relationship has broken down to such a degree.
“We find that her failure to challenge the comments does not undermine her account.
“She refers in numerous messages to her partner that we have been taken to, to the futility of arguing with Mr Hawkes, something she expressed again in her oral evidence.
“She also only refers to ‘fighting back’ on one occasion, later in November 2023.
“We find [Ms Morgan] did not frequently challenge Mr Hawkes and in light of the nature of their relationship, the dependency, anxiety and desire to please we describe above we are satisfied that her failure to challenge does not undermine her account.
“We are satisfied the comment does amount to unfavourable treatment. It suggests that the way a pregnant woman looks will make her off-putting to clients to the extent that she should not be seen.
“We find that the request for [Ms Morgan] to return the company car amounts to a detriment.
“[Ms Morgan] agreed to the termination of her employment on terms, including that she could keep the company car untilChristmas.
“[Panelex] reneged on that agreement very soon thereafter and as soon as [Ms Morgan] sought payment of the sums to which she was entitled.
“The request to return the company car was as a direct response (couched in terms of a ‘compromise’) to [Ms Morgan’s] request for the wages legally owed to her.
“The car was used as a bargaining chip for [Ms Morgan] to receive that money which she had made clear from the outset she desperately needed.”