Pregnant accountant wins £30k payout after her 'spiteful' boss cut her hours when she called in with morning sickness before she was sacked in 'sham' redundancy

Daily Mail​

06-06-2025

A pregnant accountant has won more than £30,000 after her boss cut her hours when she called in with morning sickness before sacking her just as she was due to go on maternity leave.
Sadia Shakil was told by property boss Mohammed Saleem 'it would be best if you only come into work for two days per week' after she told him she was pregnant and experiencing sickness, a tribunal heard.
This forced Mrs Shakil to take on another full-time job to cope with the financial pressures of an upcoming baby - and still had to find time in evenings and at weekends to fulfill the two days work for her 'spiteful' boss.
The burden of money worries weighed on her so heavily she questioned if it was the 'right thing to have a baby' and didn't enjoy pregnancy.
However, Mr Saleem ignored her throughout her pregnancy and sacked her just as she was due to go on maternity leave in a 'sham' redundancy.
Now a tribunal has ordered Mr Saleem's property development company to pay Mrs Shakil £31,860 after she sued him for maternity discrimination.
'Hateful' Mr Saleem even described Mrs Shakil's pregnancy as 'embarrassing' during tribunal proceedings, it was heard.
Birmingham Employment Tribunal was told Mrs Shakil joined Mr Saleem's company Samsons Ltd, based in Bedford, Beds, in October 2020.
She became pregnant in early 2021 and in March 2021 called Mr Saleem to say she was unwell due to morning sickness as she was pregnant.
The following day he 'unilaterally reduced her hours of work from full-time to two days per week', it was heard.
He told Mrs Shakil: 'After careful thought and deliberation especially 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 two days per week.'
It was a 'financial struggle' for Mrs Shakil to only work two days per week because her husband was out of a job at the time so she was the main source of their income.
A tribunal report said: 'She was motivated to stay with [Samsons Ltd] as she had accrued sufficient pre-pregnancy service to qualify for maternity leave, which would not be the case with new employment.
'[She] experienced stress, anxiety and panic from the time that [Mr Saleem] reduced her hours to part-time.
'She did not know how she and her husband were going to manage financially and how she would be able to afford all the things needed for a new baby.
'[Her] anxiety manifested itself over the period after April 2021 in sleepless nights, low self-esteem, frequent tearfulness, rumination and being 'plagued by worrisome thoughts day and night', including doubts about whether she had done the right thing to have a baby at all when she was not financially stable.
'She experienced panic attacks and had feelings of fear that she would not be able to obtain alternative or additional work if prospective employers found out she was pregnant.
'This led her to set about concealing her pregnancy with baggy clothes or by asking for interviews to be conducted remotely.
'This inhibited [her] enjoyment of her pregnancy because she felt she had to conceal it much of the time. During interviews she would feel embarrassed and anxious.'
After just over a month, Mrs Shakil obtained a full-time job in a second finance role.
The report said: 'She hoped that, if she did this job alongside the part-time hours she still had with [Samsons Ltd] to make ends meet, she would be able to return to full-time hours with [the company] once she returned from maternity leave.'
While pregnant, she had to work 8.30am to 5pm five days per week, had to commute 45 minutes to that job once a week, then fit in two days of work with Samsons Ltd and travel to the office to do paperwork in evenings and at weekends.
As her pregnancy progressed she felt 'confused' by a lack of correspondence from Mr Saleem about her maternity leave.
She suffered complications and was booked in to be induced so informed Mr Saleem she was going to begin her maternity leave on October 1.
But a couple of days before, he sacked her due to 'redundancy'. He also claimed he had no idea she was pregnant.
After the arrival of her newborn son, Mrs Shakil and her husband had to move in with her parents after she lost her job and the early weeks with her baby were 'marred' by trying to resolve her money issues.
The tribunal found that Mr Saleem sacked Mrs Shakil because she was pregnant, not redundancy.
Employment Judge Vereena Jones said: 'The discrimination took place at a time in [Mrs Shakil'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 her 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 her ongoing financial struggles.
'[Mrs Shakil] had to take a second job to mitigate the effects of the discrimination. This meant she has to work very long hours during what was a difficult pregnancy.
'[She] was confused and distressed by Mr Saleem's behaviour... Mr Saleem was someone known to [her] family and considerably senior to her in age and authority in the organisation and in her community.
'[Mrs Shakil's] feelings were further hurt by her dismissal on the sham basis... that her job was redundant.
'The effects of the discriminatory dismissal were ongoing at the time of the hearing, four years later, because [she] is still worried that she might have a similar experience with her new employer if she decides to have another baby.'