‘Spiteful’ boss cut pregnant accountant’s hours after she told him she had morning sickness

A “spiteful” boss cut his pregnant employee’s work hours after she told him she had morning sickness, and then fired her when her maternity leave was due to start, a tribunal has heard.

Sadia Shakil had worked as an accountant and bookkeeper at the property development firm Samsons in Bedford since October 2020, and became pregnant early the following year.

But after Ms Shakil phoned her boss Mohammed Saleem on 30 March 2021 to inform him that she was experiencing morning sickness due to her pregnancy, he then proceeded to tell her in an email the following day that he was cutting her working hours.

In the email seen by the tribunal, Mr Saleem wrote: “Considering that I am unable to give you extra work as I am abroad and in view that you are feeling unwell during your pregnancy it would be best if you only come into work for 2 days per week.”

The tribunal ruled that this was a “fundamental” breach of Ms Shakil’s employment contract, which caused her to experience “stress, anxiety and panic” while questioning how she and her husband would be able to afford essential items for their baby now that their main source of income had been unilaterally reduced.

During this period, Ms Shakil suffered sleepless nights and panic attacks while being “plagued by worrisome thoughts”, including “doubts about whether she had done the right thing to have a baby at all when she was not financially stable”.

After informing her boss that she needed to resign, Ms Shakil managed to secure a second full-time job in May, but she continued to work at Samsons in her spare time in the hope she would be able to resume her full-time role at the firm after her maternity leave.

In the months that followed, Mr Saleem ignored multiple emails from Ms Shakil about her upcoming maternity leave, “which caused her further stress and worry”, at a time when she also suffered complications, being admitted to hospital on two occasions.

By the end of September, blood tests had revealed a potentially serious condition which Ms Shakil was told put her baby at risk of still birth, resulting in the hospital booking her in to have her baby induced on 17 October.

Two days after Ms Shakil’s final email on 27 September, informing Mr Saleem that her leave would now commence on 1 October, he finally responded – referring to a letter she had not received “putting her role at risk of redundancy”.

Ms Shakil was dismissed with effect from 1 October 2021, when she began maternity leave, the tribunal noted.

After her son was born on 18 October, the family were forced to move back in with Ms Shakil’s parents “due to the financial pressure that [her] loss of employment and lack of maternity pay had created”.

Ms Shakil’s subsequent claim to the Department for Work and Pensions for maternity allowance was then rejected on the grounds that her employer was responsible for paying it.

“The claimant’s early weeks and months with her new baby were marred by the need to devote time to trying to resolve her financial predicament and bringing the employment tribunal proceedings,” the tribunal found.

After an initial tribunal in Birmingham in April 2023, Ms Shakil was awarded £5,000 in damages for maternity discrimination and Samsons ordered to pay her for income lost while on reduced hours.

In an email sent in June 2023 in which he asked Ms Shakil to provide her bank details so that he could pay her the sum awarded by the tribunal, Mr Saleem wrote “I hope that you have a wonderful time utilising the monies gained from me”, adding that the loss of money “will make no difference to me”.

A further appeal hearing in March 2025 found that Ms Shakil “was horrified” by the email – which she described as “disturbing and “nasty” – and “was shocked that Mr Saleem could be so spiteful to her”.

Ms Shakil’s appeal that the sum awarded to her had been too low was accepted, and the judge ordered Samsons to pay her a total of £31,860.

Finding it to be a “serious case of discrimination”, the tribunal found: “The discrimination took place at a time in the claimant’s life which she had hoped and planned would be exciting and happy – the pregnancy, birth and early life of her first child.

“Instead, she suffered physical and emotional symptoms of anxiety and distress. These included sleepless nights, panic attacks, intrusive anxious thoughts and tearfulness. There was evidence that the claimant’s confidence and self-esteem were damaged by the discrimination.

“These symptoms persisted from the time she was told that her hours had been cut to two days per week, until her baby was born. The symptoms did not stop then, however, because of the claimants’ ongoing financial struggles.”

It added: “The effects of the discriminatory dismissal were ongoing at the time of the hearing, four years later, because the claimant is still worried that she might have a similar experience with her new employer if she decides to have another baby.”