An employment tribunal has found that a sales manager was subjected to unfavorable treatment after a colleague told her "nobody wants to see a pregnant woman, Jess." The tribunal at Swansea Magistrates' Court heard that the manager, who joined the firm in 2020 in a sales role with a £40,000 annual salary, announced her pregnancy in July 2023.
In a judgment issued in June 2026, the tribunal noted that the manager felt her colleague's demeanor had shifted and perceived her pregnancy as an inconvenience. However, the tribunal also stated that the manager was unable to provide specific examples to support this feeling, attributing it largely to her own anxiety. The two were the only full-time staff members in the office, with the manager reporting to her colleague. The tribunal identified a power imbalance that extended beyond the typical employer-employee dynamic, noting the manager's reliance on her colleague for approval.
The comment in question was allegedly made around November 2023, before the manager began her maternity leave. She had offered to help prepare for a client presentation, and the colleague reportedly responded with the remark about a pregnant woman not being desirable to see. The colleague denied making the statement during his testimony, pointing to inconsistencies in when it was supposedly said. Nevertheless, the tribunal decided the comment had been made.
The manager commenced her maternity leave in January 2024 and departed the firm around October of that year after a meeting with the colleague. Both parties agreed she would not return to work, though the manager claimed she felt persuaded to reach this agreement. Her other claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and sex discrimination were dismissed by the tribunal.
The tribunal determined that the colleague's comment constituted "unfavorable treatment" and suggested that "the way a pregnant woman looks will make her off-putting to clients to the extent that she should not be seen." Despite the finding that the comment was substantiated, the claim was dismissed because it was filed significantly out of time, and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider it.
However, the manager did succeed in a claim of victimisation. This arose after she received an "aggressive and threatening" letter from her colleague that rescinded an agreement for her to keep a company car until Christmas 2024. This letter was sent after she requested payment for accrued holiday entitlement during her maternity leave.
A further hearing is scheduled to determine if any compensation will be awarded.