And speaking of brief appearances brings me to the case of N K Kolan v Marks and Spencer Group 2024, in which the Employment Tribunal considered whether the employee had been unfairly dismissed and discriminated against on the grounds of pregnancy and maternity.

Mrs Kolan began her short employment with Marks and Spencer Group on 15 October 2023, commencing with a training period. After initial induction and baking training between 15 and 24 October at Brent Cross and Uxbridge, she was required to transfer to Watford.

Mrs Kolan worked in Watford on 26 and 27 October but encountered difficulties lifting heavy boxes. Both she and her employer agreed that she would not be required to lift anything heavier than 5kg due to a back issue she had previously mentioned. On 28 October, Mrs Kolan contacted Ms Bowie, the branch manager, citing back and groin pain. She explained that, during her training in Uxbridge, things had gone smoothly because she was not required to lift heavy packages. However, problems began during her training in Watford.

In her witness statement, Mrs Kolan explained her situation. Among other things, she stated that during a meeting with the branch manager she said, “I can’t carry more than 5kg, which is very important for me because I am pregnant.” She went on to say, “The moment I mentioned my pregnancy, Caroline’s expression changed. Her face dropped, and she immediately dismissed me, saying, ‘I’m sorry, we don’t have any suitable jobs for you […] I can’t move you anywhere else because your English isn’t good enough.’”

Mrs Kolan stood outside the meeting room for half an hour, expecting someone to come out and speak to her regarding her dismissal. However, after approximately 30 minutes, she knocked on the branch manager’s door in hopes of gaining some clarity. In her witness statement, Mrs Kolan explained that when she asked what she could do, she was told to "leave your card and go." She further stated that she did as she was told but clarified that she did not hand in her swipe card as an act of resignation, as she did not want to resign. Instead, she handed it over because she was instructed to do so. In her witness statement, she also mentioned: “I was not given a formal termination letter, any notice period, or any right to appeal. I was being sent away without a single piece of paperwork or a proper explanation.”

In the branch manager’s evidence, she stated that when she learned of Mrs Kolan’s pregnancy, she congratulated her and discussed the possibility of finding other roles for her. However, at that time, there were no vacancies in the store, but the branch manager expressed a willingness to explore whether Mrs Kolan could be accommodated in another department. She further explained that the discussion about alternative roles arose because Mrs Kolan had given the impression that she was unhappy in the bakery. The branch manager clarified that the search for other roles had nothing to do with Mrs Kolan’s pregnancy. She also stated that, had Mrs Kolan wanted to remain in the bakery, they would have conducted a risk assessment to identify any additional risks related to her pregnancy and would have made adjustments accordingly. However, they never reached this stage, as Mrs Kolan resigned on the same day.

Mrs Kolan subsequently filed claims with the Employment Tribunal on the grounds of automatic unfair dismissal and discrimination related to pregnancy and maternity.

The ET concluded that Mrs Kolan was dismissed from her employment by the employer on 30 October 2023. The ET stated, "While the words ‘I dismissed you’ or similar were not used, it is clear (based on our factual findings) that [the branch manager] unambiguously communicated to [Mrs Kolan] that her services were no longer required." The ET further noted that any doubt that may have existed was resolved by what transpired in the second meeting, specifically the instruction from Ms Bowie that Mrs Kolan should hand over her swipe card and locker keys. The ET also highlighted, "In short, by both word and deed, the [employer] unambiguously communicated to [Mrs Kolan] her dismissal."

Additionally, the ET concluded that "the dismissal was, in fact, caused by the disclosure of pregnancy, and that this was the reason, or the principal reason, for her dismissal”. The ET further highlighted that "until the discussion on 30 October, the efforts of both [Mrs Kolan] and Ms Bowie were focused on improving the situation for [her] within the bakery." It was noted that nothing else "explained the radical change in position to one of an immediate parting of ways - other than the mention of pregnancy”.

The ET upheld Mrs Kolan’s claims of automatic unfair dismissal and discrimination.

This case highlights the legal responsibilities of employers to prevent pregnancy discrimination and ensure fair treatment. It emphasises the need for clear communication in employment decisions and reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees. Employers must recognise that dismissals linked to pregnancy can lead to automatic unfair dismissal claims, with serious legal consequences. Ultimately, it serves as a reminder that protecting employee rights is both a legal duty and crucial for a fair workplace.