The employment tribunal in Lincoln has awarded £15K in the case of Miss Ellis Taylor vs Bingham and Young Optical Ltd. The case revolved around Miss Taylor’s dismissal due to a doctor prescribed absence following her miscarriage.
Background
Miss Taylor began working for Mr Uppal, the owner of three opticians branches, on 4. January 2022. Working in his Lincoln branch, Miss Taylor initially worked alongside another qualified optical dispenser. However, this co-worker was dismissed later the same month, leaving Miss Taylor, a trainee optical dispenser, to run the store by herself. Her duties included dispensing, fitting, and checking spectacles, booking
appointments, managing the practice and opening.
As a trainee in the role, she had to take time for education, taking two weeks for an in person course. As part of her education, she was expected to receive mentoring from Mr Uppal too, who is a qualified optical dispenser, however the tribunal found this never took place. He did not provide training, education or development of her skills. This led her to,on one occasion, incorrectly order a more expensive pair of lenses – however the tribunal found she had never been trained on the IT system for this. Despite her inexperience, she performed generally very well in the role and no complaints were made at the time.
However, despite her strong start in the role, things soon took a turn for the worse. On 24. May Miss Taylor felt unwell and explained to Mr Uppal that she was going to see a doctor the next day. She was experiencing pain in her abdomen and was concerned she may be unexpectedly pregnant. Mr Uppal responded well and the next day he brought forward her six month probation review to 14 June. It is worth noting that employees qualify for Statutory Maternity Pay after 26 weeks continuous service with an employer. On 9. June Miss Taylor confirmed that she was pregnant, however the next day she felt unwell again and sought medical advice about a possible miscarriage. She consulted a doctor and was advised to rest at home. Over the next four days, she took some time off work for emergency tests.
On 15 June Miss Taylor was informed that she had miscarried. Nonetheless, she attended work on the 16. and 17. June. However, after struggling and consulting a doctor she was advised to take a week off to deal with the news. That evening, she was called by Mr Uppal as her shift was closing, informing her that she had been dismissed. He explained that it was because she had been signed off for a week; he would have to find cover for the shop and therefore he had decided not to extend the probation period after all. He did not confirm the dismissal in writing. Later, feeling she had been discriminated against, Miss Taylor decided to take the case to the employment tribunal.
The Tribunal’s Findings
The respondent argued that the reason for Miss Taylor’s termination was her performance at work. Mr Uppal pointed to the misordering of the lenses earlier in the year, as well as violations of the dress code early in her employment. He argued that the final straw came from her mishandling of a customer complaint. A customer had brought in broken lenses, purchased two years earlier. As per the manufacturer’s policy, Miss Taylor reassured the customer that they would be covered in the warranty and sent to the manufacturer. However, upon receiving the lenses, they rejected the claim, leading to a complaint.
However, the tribunal rejected this argument. They found that Miss Taylor had acted in
good faith and simply told the customer what she had been told by the
manufacturer. Furthermore, Mr Uppal had not documented any alleged misconduct by Miss Taylor at the time. In addition her performance review did not mention any of these supposed failings. In fact she had never received any formal or informal warnings, nor did she receive notification of her dismissal in writing. It appeared the time off following the miscarriage which prompted the decision to dismiss.
Another issue raised in the tribunal was Miss Taylor’s missing contract. Despite a legal entitlement and requesting one, the claimant never received a written contract. Instead the tribunal relied on a simple WhatsApp message detailing her pay and hours, missing important information about conduct and responsibilities. Employers should take note that they have a legal responsibility to provide a written contract.
Tribunal Award
Ultimately the tribunal found that Miss Taylor had in fact been dismissed due to the time taken off for her miscarriage. In the UK there is no legal entitlement to bereavement leave if a miscarriage happens before 24 weeks but any sickness absence is still considered ‘pregnancy-related illness’ and is protected from discrimination. The tribunal therefore sided with Miss Taylor, awarding her in total £14,588.67 in compensation, composed of:
- loss of earnings + interest: £1435.90.
- Injury to feelings + interest: £11,408.07
- Failure to provide contract: £1,744.60
Miss Taylor was able to find new employment relatively soon after her dismissal, reducing the award. The case is a reminder of the employment rights workers enjoy in the UK. Discrimination due to any protected trait is likely to lead to hefty financial penalties. If legitimate other reasons cause the employment to end, businesses should be careful to document these and communicate them to the staff members affected. Judges are unlikely to be persuaded by defences lacking such evidence, as shown in this case.