Pregnant Woman Wins £93,000 After Being Fired via SMS Over Morning Sickness
The intersection of health, professional duty, and legal protection has been starkly highlighted by a recent tribunal ruling involving Paula Miluska, a former investment consultant at Roman Property Group Limited in Birmingham. After experiencing severe pregnancy-related nausea, Miluska’s request for remote work accommodations led to an unexpected termination of her contract via text message.
A Professional Relationship Severed
Miluska joined the firm in March 2022. By October, as she began experiencing intense morning sickness, she sought to manage her health while maintaining her professional output. Following advice from a midwife, she requested to work from home during a period where hormonal fluctuations typically peak in severity.
As her condition worsened, she kept her employer informed, detailing that she was vomiting up to six times a day and faced the possibility of hospitalization. Despite her efforts to stay productive—even securing a new client while unwell—her manager sent a message on December 1st that the tribunal later described as “voluntarily vague.”
Legal Repercussions and Findings
In the message, the employer cited that the company was “taking too long” and needed someone physically present in the office. The communication ended with a smiley face emoji and a suggestion to catch up socially, yet effectively marked the end of her employment and salary payments.
During the subsequent tribunal hearing, Judge Garry Smart determined that the text message was an unambiguous termination of the working relationship. The employer’s argument that Miluska had not been fired was rejected by the court. The tribunal ruled in favor of the employee, recognising the act as a discriminatory dismissal linked to her pregnancy.
Did You Know? The tribunal awarded Paula Miluska a total of 93,616.74 pounds sterling (approximately 111,000 euros) after determining her dismissal was directly tied to her pregnancy-related health struggles.
Expert Insight: This case underscores the critical importance of clear, documented communication between employers and employees regarding health-related accommodations. From a management perspective, the attempt to handle sensitive employment matters through informal digital channels like text messaging often fails to meet legal standards of due process and can lead to significant financial and reputational consequences for a business.
Looking Ahead
The resolution of this case serves as a point of reference for future employment disputes regarding health accommodations. Employers may find themselves under increased scrutiny to ensure that performance-related decisions are not conflated with medical conditions protected under labor laws. Companies will refine their internal policies to provide more formal, documented procedures for employees requesting health-related work adjustments to avoid similar legal challenges.
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the primary health reasons for the requested accommodation?
Paula Miluska requested to work from home due to severe, persistent pregnancy-related nausea, which she noted was lasting throughout the day rather than only in the morning.
How did the employer communicate the dismissal?
The employer communicated the end of the contract through a text message, which the tribunal later characterized as “voluntarily vague,” mentioning a need for an in-office presence and the company “taking too long.”
What was the outcome of the tribunal hearing?
The tribunal rejected the employer’s claim that the employee was not fired, recognized the dismissal as discriminatory, and awarded Miluska 93,616.74 pounds sterling in compensation.
How do you believe workplaces can better balance the need for physical presence with the health requirements of expectant employees?