Court awards medic £6,000 after boss’s pregnancy comments were ruled gender discrimination

Doctor received £6,000 from Glasgow labor tribunal after the director of her company asked if she was pregnant when she mentioned that she had a “surprise” that she wanted to share with him.

Lesley Coia, an employee at Event Medical Group, felt “surprised and embarrassed” when she arrived for her shift and, after telling Gareth Hughes she had a surprise to tell him, he responded by asking if she was pregnant.

Afterwards, she “told colleagues she couldn’t believe what (Hughes) said” and “commented that (he) was a cheeky bastard and if she gained weight he would be unable to speak.” Later during the shift, Hughes also said that “if she wasn’t pregnant, he could have helped (Coya) get pregnant.”

Woman wins gender and pregnancy discrimination claim after boss commented on her breasts

Sex Discrimination: Recent Cases and Laws Explained

Factory worker became a victim of gender discrimination when HR took a female colleague’s complaint more seriously than his tribunal rules

Employment Judge McLean ruled that the remarks amounted to direct sex discrimination after considering “how the second respondent (Hughes) would have reacted to a twenty-year-old male medic telling him he was in for a surprise.”

“Although the tribunal considered that the second respondent (Hughes) was likely to attempt a humorous response, the tribunal did not consider that he would ask the comparator if he had a child and, if not, offer sex to help achieve this.” the judge ruled, awarding Coya £6,000 for injury to feelings.

Background

Event Medical Group supplies ambulances and personnel for private events, for which Coya has served as a medic since July 12, 2022.

On 28 July 2023 the claimant was given a shift at an event in Dundee where Hughes was working as a paramedic. She arrived at the center around noon and told Hughes she had a “surprise” to tell him, to which he asked if she was pregnant. Koya replied: “No, who wants children?” She was “surprised and embarrassed” because “he had never made comments like that to her before.”

During her shift, Koya asked to speak with Hughes and explained her plans to travel to Australia. The court noted that “Hughes already knew that she had recently ended a personal relationship.” Hughes noted that if she were not pregnant, he could have helped her get pregnant. Koya was stunned but decided to ignore the comment.

After that, they began to discuss the terms of travel to events, and when the conversation ended and Koya turned away to walk, Hughes called after her, saying, “The offer still stands.” The tribunal noted that Koya later broke down in tears “as she felt insulted that her line manager had said what he had said.”

On 29 July 2023, Coya visited the hub as she had to work a shift at another event in Dundee. The plaintiff was sitting in front of the minivan and Hughes, who was not working his shift, approached and asked her again if she was pregnant. She “couldn’t believe what was being said” and commented: “What the hell.”

In a later email exchange about pay and shift fairness, she said: “I would like to point out that as a member of the management team, your own communication style should also be taken into account. I would refer to the incident that occurred on the 28th when you commented on whether I was pregnant or not and then added, “If you are not pregnant, I can help you get pregnant.” These comments are not only offensive, but may well be grounds for action by HR for possible sexual harassment.”

She confirmed that she is resigning immediately and intends to turn in her uniform and equipment within a few days. Company manager Mr Pendlebury convened a committee to investigate allegations of sexual harassment, but the meeting was postponed while Koya awaited instructions on next steps. Pendlebury produced an investigative report that included “biased shift assignments” and a complaint of sexual harassment. It said the complainant had not filed a formal complaint, but efforts were being made to arrange a meeting.

A draft investigative report was sent to Hughes on August 26, 2023. He replied: “Bring your laptop. There may be minor changes to the report. Otherwise it will be damn hot.” Pendlebury noted that he was careful to emphasize that the complainant was wrong and malicious in her comments.

On Aug. 27, Pendlebury emailed the team an investigative report recommending that the claims in Coy’s August email had no basis. The panel unanimously decided that the comment “Are you pregnant?” was done without causing any harm or offense.

On September 5, Pendlebury emailed Coya saying that since four weeks had passed since the initial proposal for a meeting and, despite attempts at reorganization, she had been unable to secure a date, he now considered the matter closed. The applicant was not informed of either the investigation report or the commission’s decision.

Expert group comments

Employment Judge McLean ruled that “the management’s modus operandi and investigation was not to resolve the matter or learn from it, but to put pressure on the complainant to withdraw the complaint or withdraw from the proceedings.”

“The tribunal considered that the behavior was related to sex. The tone of communications between the second defendant (Hughes) and Mr Pendlebury suggests that the plaintiff was perceived as a stupid young woman who needed to be put in her place,” they said.

It also found that “there was an issue regarding (Hughes’s) participation in the investigation and complaint process.”

“(Hughes) said that he himself asked Mr Pendlebury to investigate his case. (Hughes) denied any direct involvement in the investigation or its outcome. His position was that the investigation was carried out by Mr Pendlebury, and its outcome was decided by a previously appointed “disciplinary” panel. Mr Pendlebury stated that he did not have much experience in human resources management,” the tribunal said.

“(Hughes) was involved from the beginning. He followed the progress of the investigation. Emails will be drafted by Mr. Pendlebury for (his) approval. This included an investigation report (…) The Tribunal did not consider that the investigation was opened to establish the facts, reflect on what happened or consider training needs.”

The tribunal upheld Coya’s claims of gender discrimination and sexual harassment.

Lawyer’s comments

Daniel Hales, employment consultant at Birketts, said: “While the compensation award serves as a reminder not to make unwanted comments or assumptions about pregnancy, this case is also a textbook example of how employers can unfortunately make matters worse by unfair disciplinary investigation into the complaint.”

He said the perpetrator’s interference in the investigation, the bias of the disciplinary panel and the fact that the complainant’s complaints became the subject of general speculation in the office were all factors taken into account by the tribunal.

“In fact, the tribunal felt so strongly about this that it considered the manner in which the investigation was conducted was itself an act of persecution,” he explained, adding that the decision also highlighted the importance of the credibility of witnesses.

“Context, as always, is critical. This case could have gone a different way if the tribunal had found the defendant’s explanation for the original comment complained about to be plausible, or if the perpetrator had not been allowed to have much influence over the investigation,” Hales said.

“Three of the four comments were disputed and there were no other witnesses, so it was the plaintiff’s word against the criminal’s word – and ultimately it was the plaintiff who was believed. Once the tribunal found that all four alleged comments had been made, findings of direct sex discrimination and sex-related harassment became virtually inevitable.”

For more information and resources on bullying and harassment, visit CIPD dedicated theme center