A pregnant worker was fired by text after starting to work from home due to pregnancy-related health issues. The case took place in England and ended with Roman Property Group Limited ordered by the Employment Tribunal to pay compensation of £93,616.74, around €108,160 at the May 2026 European Central Bank reference rate.
According to the Employment Tribunal decision, also reported by , the woman had worked as an investment consultant at the company, in Birmingham, since March 21, 2022. In October of that year, she discovered that she was pregnant and, in the following weeks, she began to suffer intense nausea.
After speaking to the midwife, she informed the company that she had been recommended to work from home. In the messages analyzed by the court, she explained that the following two weeks would usually be the most critical period for nausea caused by hormonal changes during pregnancy. The midwife also mentioned that the company should do a health and safety assessment when she returns to work.
Worker warned that she could be hospitalized
The employee started working remotely when she could. Later, the boss asked how he was doing and the answer was clear: he felt “horrible” and continued to feel nauseous every day.
The superior then asked if she would be able to work a few days in person the following week, finishing at 4pm so as not to be too demanding. The court recorded that, at that stage, the request was not objectionable as it was linked to the need for coverage in the office. The worker explained, however, that she would not be able to work that week, not even from home.
The situation was so serious that the employee said that if the nausea did not improve, she might have to be hospitalized with hyperemesis gravidarum. “I don’t think I can even work from home, much less go to the office,” she wrote in one of the messages.
Firing message included open hands emoji
On December 1, 2022, the worker received a message from her boss that would be analyzed in court. The superior wrote that the company needed to find someone to be in the office because work was running behind schedule.
In the same message, he added that he hoped she wouldn’t take the situation “personally” or see the company as “bad” because they were “really struggling.” The text ended with a reference to possible future opportunities, a meeting outside of work and with a smiling face emoji with open hands, described in the decision as “jazz hands smiley”.
Although the company later argued that the employee had not been fired, the employee received no further payments after December 1.
Court ruled in favor of the employee
For the Employment Tribunal, the message sent by the boss represented, in a clear and objective way, the end of the employment relationship. The court also found that the dismissal was related to absence from office caused by illness associated with pregnancy.
The decision concluded that there was unfavorable treatment due to the illness suffered as a result of the pregnancy, under the Equality Act 2010, and also ruled in favor of the worker in the complaint for automatically unfair dismissal, provided for in the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the British rules on maternity leave.
The compensation decision set Roman Property Group Limited’s total liability at £93,616.74. The court also established personal responsibilities for two people responsible for the company, but determined that the total to be paid to the worker cannot exceed this amount.
The case once again draws attention to the legal protection of pregnant workers in the United Kingdom. According to ACAS, a British labor conciliation body, the law protects against unfavorable treatment due to pregnancy, maternity leave or pregnancy-related illness, when the employer knows, or should reasonably know, that the worker is pregnant.
Case exposes serious flaws in the form of dismissal
In addition to discrimination, the case was marked by the way communication was made. The use of an ambiguous message, sent by cell phone and accompanied by an emoji, ended up reinforcing the controversy surrounding the dismissal.
The worker had informed the company about her health status and the possibility of hospitalization. Even so, the working relationship ended shortly after he explained that he was unable to return to the office.
The court decision leaves a clear message: difficulties with internal organization or backlog of work do not justify dismissing an employee because of medical limitations associated with pregnancy.
Also read:
