Ms K Nasreen v Dr Malik t/a Malik Law Solicitors (in intervention) — 2019

The claimant attended and gave sworn evidence; the respondent and intervener did not attend, and no ET3 response was filed. The tribunal accepted that Ms K Nasreen had been employed as a receptionist at Malik Law Chambers, owned by Dr Malik, and that she became ill in January 2018 with pregnancy-related illness. She provided medical certificates, remained off work for about four weeks, and when her husband contacted the practice in mid-February he was told that she was no longer required.

The tribunal found there had been no dismissal procedure, no meetings, and no letters explaining any dismissal decision. It rejected the respondent’s suggested explanation that she had been dismissed for unauthorised holidays in 2017, and found that no other reason was put forward for the dismissal. On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed because she was sick and unable to work due to pregnancy-related illness, and upheld both unfair dismissal and pregnancy-related discrimination.

On remedy, the tribunal awarded £1,356 for the claimant’s unpaid January 2018 wages and £156 for four days’ outstanding holiday pay. For unfair dismissal, it awarded £2,712, described as two months’ wages, because it found she would have remained employed for another two months before the firm was intervened in April 2018 and the business shut down. It also awarded £500 for injury to feelings arising from the pregnancy-related discrimination, making a total award of £4,724 payable forthwith.