In the case of Mrs E Preteni Shala v Rashid and Rashid Law Firm an employment tribunal heard that Mrs Shala joined Rashid Law Firm in 2016, where she progressed to an assistant case worker.
When she was 11 weeks pregnant in July 2018, she told Mr Khan who allegedly ‘interrupted’ her and said she should resign as she was ‘not fit to work and would not be able to cope with the stress’.
Later that month, responding to texts from Mrs Shala informing him of upcoming scans, he said: ‘I already told you if you are not feeling well and not able to perform your duties, then you are free to give me a month notice.’
When Mrs Shala failed to resign, Mr Khan ‘effectively demoted’ her, the tribunal found, by making her do administrative tasks instead of case work.
Judge Clarke determined that Mr Khan’s treatment of Mrs Shala was ‘materially different’ to how he treated her before she was pregnant.
‘On the basis of the findings of fact, [we are] satisfied that the [Mr Khan] did the following acts which amounted to unfavourable treatment of [Mrs Shala]… because of her pregnancy.
‘On July 12 2018 [he] told [her] she must resign and that she was not fit to work anymore.
‘After being informed of her pregnancy, [Mr Khan] effectively demoted [her] from case work assistant to admin staff by changing her duties.
‘He no longer allocated her new casework and placed her on post duties.
‘His inaction in changing her duties led to a short-term increase in [her] workload through at least the remainder of July 2018 and into August 2018 as she was required to continue her existing case work and take on the new post work.
‘On various dates and on a number of separate occasions [Mr Khan] moved [Mrs Shala’s] desk allocation including in July to August 2018 when he placed her into a hot, unventilated and unairconditioned room unsuitable for a pregnant woman.
‘[Mr Khan] was difficult and rude about (her] absences for pregnancy related scans and appointments.
‘He increasingly micro-managed [her], going beyond his micro-managing of other employees.
‘This included requiring [her] to provide daily reports as to her work done…. and telling [her] on December 7, 2018 that she was not to leave her seat or speak to anyone during working hours.
‘Similarly, [Mrs Shala] also complained of a number of other acts of [Mr Khan] which might be broadly described as ‘nitpicking’.
‘[Mr Khan] failed to confirm [her] dates for maternity leave and her entitlement to, and rate of, maternity pay despite requests from her.
‘He failed to handle her grievance appropriately or sensitively in that he determined the grievance without giving her a reasonable opportunity to attend a grievance meeting.
‘[Mr Khan] told Mr Terziu to phone [Mrs Shala] about the grievance on January 24, 2019.
‘During that call [Mrs Shala] advised Mr Terziu she was on maternity leave, and she told him she had not yet given birth.
‘She then received a further four phone calls from [Mr Khan] or Mr Terziu on January 29, the day she gave birth, whilst she was in labour which caused her to be stressed.’
The tribunal awarded Mrs Shala a total of £26,606 for injury to feelings plus £5,381.55 in lost wages.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
