Bullied out of job, I believe due to pregnancy discrimination

Undervalued

OliviaPearl wrote: »

‘Were the others pregnant? If not then it helps her case more than yours as it suggests she is not discriminating.’

The other situations I’ve heard of are not quite the same sort of situation but involve unfair deductions from people’s wages or they were working for her for some time and she didn’t even ask for their bank details so that they could be paid.

Hearsay at best, concentrate on your case. Even if she treated others badly (in a different way) that doesn't in itself prove she treated you unlawfully.

Undervalued

Blatchford wrote: »

They might. But they would still need evidence to come to that conclusion and the poster doesn't have any. What is more likely, and I come across this all too often, is that people think that tribunals hear both sides of an argument and come to a conclusion about who to believe. That is arbitration, and employment tribunals do not arbitrate, they rule on points of law. Without any evidence, and the poster is saying that she has no evidence despite her wanting to believe she has, then it is in danger of being a spurious claim. That contention would actually be strengthened rather than weakened by a good lawyer arguing that the employer knew full well she was pregnant, that she had no problem with that (a very credible argument given that most of us know that many employers wouldn't employ someone who is pregnant anyway, no matter what the law says), that the posters performance was poor and when she was pulled up on this, she resigned and began making spurious and libellous /slanderous comments about her poor employer being discriminatory etc.,etc.

The poster may not like it, but based on the facts that she has provided, that is a far more convincing and evidencedclaim than the one she is putting forward. Truth isn't always what matters. Evidence is something that always matters.

I agree. The OP needs to seek proper professional advice if she intends to pursue this.

[Deleted User]

Yes, I can see that it would be a difficult and stressful thing to start. I think I would need to see a solicitor and see whether the evidence I have is persuasive. I’ve been surprised to hear about the bad experiences of pregnant women generally. Such as being put on probation after being off sick due to hyper emesis. I didn’t know this was a thing tbh.

I was posting on here to see if anyone had experienced anything similar I suppose.

Blatchford

OliviaPearl wrote: »

I take it you’re not an employment lawyer?
.

Nah. I'm an astronaut. Are you really a beautician or are you making it all up?

You should never believe anyone on a forum when they claim to be something. I didn't and don't make any claims, and won't be making one now. But I do know employment and employment law. If you wanted a lawyer though, then this isn't the place you should have come.

[Deleted User]

Blatchford, my employer doesn’t have any evidence of my supposed ‘poor performance’ and if I ask her for any she backtracks ����!♀️

[Deleted User]

‘Hearsay at best, concentrate on your case. Even if she treated others badly (in a different way) that doesn't in itself prove she treated you unlawfully.’

Yes I know. I was responding to your asking if this person was pregnant or not?.

[Deleted User]

If you genuinely pull someone up on their poor performance and you are not making it all up then you would explain how a treatment was not meeting the required standard. I had gone through all of my treatments individually with her and specifically asked whether any of them could be improved. She said none, it’s not your treatments.

She then said it was because I had formal complaints made against me because I left early. She refused to give me specifics or a date. When I probed further with evidenced information that I had not left early (and she has CCTV so this can also be proven) she basically told me to shut up and went back to saying it was my treatments again.

nicechap

OliviaPearl wrote: »

And the reason I resigned is that I could not cope with working in such a hostile atmosphere.

OliviaPearl wrote: »

The main reason I resigned is because of the stressful effects on the baby, yes.

OliviaPearl wrote: »

‘There is nothing at all in what you are saying that says she did any of the things that you accuse her of because you are pregnant.’

My argument would be that she has tried to force me out because she doesn’t want to modify my work due to pregnancy issues. And I think the texts I have from her do support this view.

OliviaPearl wrote: »

‘Where did you get that gem from?’

ACAS. I take it you’re not an employment lawyer?

It’s not conjecture at all. I haven’t posted all my conversations with her on here via text or email because surely that would be unwise. But she repeatedly painted herself into a corner accusing me of things and when I asked her for the date she refused, backtracked, tried to shift the issue and if I asked her for evidence she became threatening ‘you’d better not mention this again to anyone’

My consultant didn’t say I was ill, he said I should be off my feet due to bleeding in the pregnancy.

OliviaPearl wrote: »

Yes, I can see that it would be a difficult and stressful thing to start. I think I would need to see a solicitor and see whether the evidence I have is persuasive. I’ve been surprised to hear about the bad experiences of pregnant women generally. Such as being put on probation after being off sick due to hyper emesis. I didn’t know this was a thing tbh.

I was posting on here to see if anyone had experienced anything similar I suppose.

Have a read through your posts again and see if you would find yourself to be a credible witness.

Its a bit like nailing blancmange to a wall.

Undervalued

OliviaPearl wrote: »

Yes, I can see that it would be a difficult and stressful thing to start.

Indeed

I think I would need to see a solicitor and see whether the evidence I have is persuasive.

Quite

I’ve been surprised to hear about the bad experiences of pregnant women generally. Such as being put on probation after being off sick due to hyper emesis. I didn’t know this was a thing tbh.

I was posting on here to see if anyone had experienced anything similar I suppose.

One final comment....

The sort of issues you describe are sadly far more likely to happen when working for a small business. Even if the owner has good intentions they are often inexperienced in managing staff and inevitably feel they would do everything better themselves.

In a dispute like this they tend to take everything personally and will likely do one of two things. Either they will settle any legal claim because of an unrealistic fear of adverse publicity. Or they will fight a hopeless and uneconomic case, because they can't possibly be in the wrong and everybody they employ is a lazy so-and-so and trying to rip them off!

Other staff are unlikely to speak against their employer for fear of their own job in most situations, particularly small businesses like this.

We (and indeed your solicitor when you get one) initially will only have heard one side of the story - yours. There are at least two sides to every story and that is before we get on to the ones people make up and can't be disproved!

Take proper advice but even if that is favourable, think long and hard about the personal aspects before proceeding.

Blatchford

OliviaPearl wrote: »

If you genuinely pull someone up on their poor performance and you are not making it all up then you would explain how a treatment was not meeting the required standard. I had gone through all of my treatments individually with her and specifically asked whether any of them could be improved. She said none, it’s not your treatments.

She then said it was because I had formal complaints made against me because I left early. She refused to give me specifics or a date. When I probed further with evidenced information that I had not left early (and she has CCTV so this can also be proven) she basically told me to shut up and went back to saying it was my treatments again.

Look, I am not saying she's a shining light. But you are missing the point. Forget about pregnancy for two seconds. Prior to getting two years service under your belt, she didn't need ANY reason at all to sack you. Not that she did sack you anyway. You resigned. But she is allowed to be the worst employer. She is allowedto make up stuff about your performance. She is allowed to come up with any reason at all to explain why she isn't happy with the way you do your job. The law doesn't care whether she is a nice person, a liar, or anything else. And it doesn't care about any of those things regardless of whether you are pregnant or not. In actual fact, you are proving my point. She's an equal opportunity b....ch who treats everyoneappallingly. So she treated you like that because that's who she is, not because you are pregnant.

Your task in an employment tribunal is to prove with evidence that the onlyor most substantial reason that she treated you appallingly is because you are pregnant and no other reason. So proving that she's a first class b..ch still won't cut it - in fact proving that she acts like that with loads of people is proving that it isn't discrimination!

I get that being treated like this is really frustrating and upsetting. But by letting her get to you, you are letting her win. Sometimes the better part of valour is to walk away knowing that you are the better person. As long as she is getting to you, she is ruining what is supposed to be a happy time, and possibly she can still make it worse.


One last point, and then if you aren't convinced I won't say any more - I am relatively sure that if you are telling the truth, she's well known for this and her behaviour will be common knowledge in the sector - in my (albeit limited) experience of the beauty industry in local areas, everyone knows everyone else. In terms of a future role, realistically, how many people will put any credence in anything she says? On the other hand, go to an employment tribunal and that also will be all the gossip. Will people want to employ you if you have a reputation of making claims to tribunals? It shouldn't matter, but it does, and it often matters most to those smaller employers that make up this kind of industry. If you've read all those headlines about huge wins at tribunals, well, the fact is that they are headlines only because the amounts won are very unusual. Extremely unusual. But people don't realise that. Employers don't realise that either. But they do know how much the layers costs to defend claims as well. When it comes to that prospect, they won't care how much of a b..ch she is or how much she deserved it. Oh they'll gossip like mad about it all, whoever wins or loses. But how many of them will want to employ someone who takes their employer to a tribunal? Unfortunately, unless they are sterling characters, you might find it is very few of them, and that they have long memories when it comes to self-interest.