Pregnant HR Assistant Wins Claim After Being Refused Pay Rise

Lots of employees do not realise that the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) lists ‘pregnancy and maternity’ as a protected characteristic. This key piece of legislation protects employees who are discriminated against in the workplace due to being pregnant or going on maternity leave and Section 18 of the EqA states;

(2)A person (A) discriminates against a woman if, in the protected period in relation to a pregnancy of hers, A treats her unfavourably —

(a)because of the pregnancy, or

(b)because of illness suffered by her as a result of it.

(3)A person (A) discriminates against a woman if A treats her unfavourably because she is on compulsory maternity leave.

(4)A person (A) discriminates against a woman if A treats her unfavourably because she is exercising or seeking to exercise, or has exercised or sought to exercise, the right to ordinary or additional maternity leave.

Pregnancy or maternity discrimination is separate from sex discrimination and claims can be made under the EqA for direct discrimination or victimisation. Unlike most other types of discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment do not arise here though. 

From the start of a pregnancy to the end of maternity leave, there are several different scenarios where the unfair treatment of a woman is unlawful, such as being refused a promotion or a pay rise. The case of Miss L Musguin v Breyer Group is a clear example of discrimination and all women should be aware that UK employment law protects them from any unfavourable course of action that is motivated by their pregnancy or maternity. 

What happened in this case?

In 2018, the claimant received an annual wage of £30,000. She was on maternity leave with her first child from 17th June 2019 until 18th August 2020. In July 2020, the previous HR Director left, creating a vacancy for a new Head of Human Resources. The claimant was asked whether she would be interested in applying for this position and she said she was not, but she was open to discussing further responsibilities. 

During the claimant’s maternity leave, the then HR Coordinator also went on maternity leave and the respondent decided to recruit a new fixed-term employee to provide cover for this role.

Contemporaneous emails show the respondent intended to pay £27,000 per annum, however, the successful candidate wanted an increased salary of £28,000. This figure was agreed to fill the vacancy. This salary was set by reference to market rates and subsequently, when being appointed the job on a permanent basis, it was decreased to £27,000 per annum.

The claimant found out about the new HR Coordinator’s pay and was very unhappy that there was only a £3,000 difference between her salary and the salary of the more junior HR Coordinator role. She believed it to be deeply unfair and that it undervalued her work and her experience. The claimant and the Head of HR had a good working relationship and he valued her support and expertise within the department, so he agreed to make a case for a pay rise for her.

In August 2020, the Managing Director and Finance Director were informed that the claimant was pregnant again during a regular weekly HR meeting. During this same meeting, the Head of HR made a request for the claimant’s pay rise, but this was refused. The claimant’s evidence is that it was refused because she was due to commence a period of maternity leave at Christmas. The Head of HR told her that the Finance Director said that because she would only be in the business for four months, a pay rise was not feasible. 

Following this meeting, the Head of HR produced a revised proposal stating that the pay rise of £2,000 is in return for the Claimant assuming additional responsibilities. At this time, the claimant also sent an email setting out her dissatisfaction with the difference in pay between her job and that of the HR Coordinator, and her view that her experience and skills were not sufficiently valued. The next day, she was informed that the pay rise of £2,000 had been agreed. 

In September 2020, the claimant raised a grievance about an unfair pay differential between her job and that of the HR Coordinator, and she still thought she was undervalued even with the £2,000 pay rise. The claimant was then signed off work for stress and she did not return before her maternity leave started. 

During this case, the Employment Tribunal had to make an objective assessment of whether pregnancy or maternity leave were a material, effective and operative cause for the unfavourable treatment. The Tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence and found that the initial request for a pay rise was refused because she was seeking to go on maternity leave four months later. This refusal of a pay rise is unfavourable treatment. 

The claimant was entitled to an award for injury to feelings and the Tribunal applied Vento when deciding how much to award in this regard. The discriminatory act of refusing a pay rise because of a proposed period of maternity leave is a serious matter and the Tribunal was satisfied that this is a lower bracket Vento case but falling at the upper end of the range. The Tribunal found the appropriate award for injury to feelings was £9,000.

Getting some legal advice about maternity rights 

If you have just found out that you are pregnant and you are unaware of what your maternity rights are or how you are protected by the EqA and you think you are being treated unfairly, it is undeniably beneficial to speak to an employment law specialist. There are some general principles that all employees should be aware of, however, this particular part of UK employment law can be quite complex. No two cases are the same and different circumstances can complicate matters, so it is always advantageous to get tailored legal advice, especially if you are considering bringing a claim to the Employment Tribunal. 

Generally speaking, in pregnancy or maternity claims, you will need to establish ‘clear facts’ from which the Employment Tribunal can conclude that an unlawful act of discrimination has taken place. It will then be your employer’s responsibility to provide an adequate explanation for the course of action and give a reason for the treatment that is not related to the protected characteristic. An employment law team can help you to prove facts that will shift the burden of proof to your employer, helping to increase the likelihood of you winning your case. 

It is important to note that there is usually a requirement to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance Procedures when raising a pregnancy or maternity discrimination issue. If you do not follow this Code of Practice, there is a chance that the compensation you receive from an Employment Tribunal will be reduced by up to 25%. 

Speaking to an employment law specialist in London 

When searching for an employment law specialist in London who can assist you with a discrimination claim, do not hesitate to contact us at Nationwide Employment Lawyers. Our team of experienced and talented employment law solicitors, barristers and advocates will be happy to provide you with the tailored employment law advice you require. With expertise in claims of discrimination and many years of experience handling complex employment disputes, you can trust that you will be in the best hands with our team. We pride ourselves on providing an extremely high standard of service at a lower cost than many comparable employment law firms too and our team will be committed to winning your case. To book an initial appointment with an employment law specialist in London, feel free to get in touch with us today.