The recent employment tribunal ruling in the case of Nilgun Kayahan Kolan against Marks and Spencer has drawn attention to the persistent issue of workplace discrimination against pregnant women.
In a decision that has stirred public discussion, the tribunal found that Ms Kayahan Kolan was unfairly dismissed from her role at the retailer’s Watford branch shortly after revealing her pregnancy.
This case has cast a spotlight on the challenges pregnant employees still face, especially in sectors where physical labor is required, and has raised questions about corporate responsibility, proper procedures, and the protection of vulnerable workers.
A Short-Lived Employment Turned Sour
Nilgun Kayahan Kolan joined Marks and Spencer in October 2023 and initially underwent induction training at the Uxbridge branch. During this period, she had been reassured that she would not have to lift more than 5kg due to an existing back issue.
This adjustment was crucial for her well-being and seemingly acknowledged by her employer. However, upon being transferred to the Watford branch, the environment and expectations shifted drastically.
At Watford, Ms Kayahan Kolan was required to lift heavy boxes, contrary to what had been initially agreed. This quickly led to physical pain in her back and groin, a concern she raised with her branch manager, Caroline Bowie.
Despite her complaints and an attempt to clarify her role and limitations, her concerns were dismissed. It was during this period of physical struggle that she disclosed her pregnancy to her manager, expecting understanding, support, and perhaps alternative tasks better suited to her condition.
Read : Latrance Battle Arrested After Impersonating ICE Official to Arrest Her Ex-Boyfriend’s Wife
Instead, what followed was a moment that would become central to the tribunal’s decision. Upon learning of Ms Kayahan Kolan’s pregnancy, Ms Bowie’s demeanor allegedly changed. The conversation that ensued made it clear to the claimant that her employment was effectively being terminated.
Read : Singapore Godwoman Jailed For 10 Years to Force Her Spiritual Followers to Eat Human Poop
The manager reportedly stated that there were no suitable jobs available for her and further remarked that due to her limited English skills, she could not be placed in other roles, such as on tills. This marked a turning point where a vulnerable employee was allegedly met not with support, but with rejection.
Lack of Due Process and Legal Violations
One of the most critical aspects of this case is the absence of any formal employment procedures in the manner Ms Kayahan Kolan was dismissed. She was not given a termination letter, a notice period, or the right to appeal the decision.
These are fundamental rights afforded to all employees under employment law, and their absence indicated a serious failure on the part of Marks and Spencer’s management at the branch level.
After being told she had no role at the company, Nilgun Kayahan Kolan waited for someone to further explain the situation or provide documentation. None came. When she sought clarification, Ms Bowie simply told her to leave her swipe card and go.
In her statement, the claimant emphasized that she did not willingly resign but complied only because she believed she had no other choice. The tribunal agreed with this interpretation, ruling that Ms Kayahan Kolan had been dismissed and that the dismissal had not followed any recognized legal or ethical employment procedure.
Ms Kayahan Kolan’s testimony was not only consistent but also compelling. She described feeling completely unsupported and dismissed after revealing her pregnancy—an action she had initially hesitated to take for fear of discrimination. Her fears, tragically, turned out to be justified.
The tribunal found that the dismissal was a direct consequence of the disclosure of her pregnancy. This finding is especially significant because under UK employment law, dismissal based on pregnancy constitutes automatic unfair dismissal and unlawful discrimination. Employers are required to make reasonable accommodations and consider alternative roles for pregnant employees who are unable to perform their existing duties.
A Case That Resonates Beyond One Employee
While the tribunal’s findings and the facts of the case are specific to Nilgun Kayahan Kolan, the implications resonate far more broadly. This case underscores how systemic and institutional failures can leave pregnant employees vulnerable. Marks and Spencer, as a prominent and long-standing retailer in the UK, is expected to uphold the highest standards of employee rights and equality.
That this situation unfolded in one of their branches raises concerns about training, oversight, and managerial accountability within the organization. There are still many pregnant employees across different sectors who hesitate to disclose their pregnancy due to fear of dismissal or mistreatment.
This tribunal ruling sends a powerful message: pregnancy should never be treated as an inconvenience or a liability in the workplace. Employers have a legal and moral obligation to support pregnant staff, accommodate their needs, and ensure they are treated with fairness and respect.
It is also noteworthy how the manager’s statement about Ms Kayahan Kolan’s English proficiency was used as a reason to deny her alternative roles. This introduces another troubling element—language and cultural barriers being used to marginalize or deny opportunities. In a diverse workforce, such attitudes not only alienate employees but also undermine inclusivity.
While Ms Bowie claimed the discussion was amicable and that she congratulated Ms Kayahan Kolan, the tribunal did not find this consistent with the overall evidence. It concluded that the dismissal was communicated clearly, even if not in formal words, and was linked directly to her pregnancy. This ruling highlights the importance of context, tone, and the broader pattern of behavior in determining whether a dismissal has occurred.
Marks and Spencer has not publicly commented on the tribunal’s decision at the time of this writing. However, the outcome may prompt the company to review its internal practices, especially regarding how line managers are trained to handle sensitive disclosures such as pregnancy and medical limitations. It also brings attention to the need for large corporations to ensure all branches and departments are aligned with corporate policies on equality and employee rights.
For Ms Kayahan Kolan, the ruling is a recognition of the injustice she faced and a vindication of her decision to pursue legal recourse. But beyond individual justice, the case has sparked broader reflection. In an era where workers’ rights should be well-protected and universally respected, stories like this are reminders that discrimination still exists in subtle but powerful ways.
Pregnancy should never cost a woman her job. And yet, this case illustrates how quickly a situation can deteriorate when biases and procedural failings collide.
It also serves as an important lesson for all employers—compliance with the law is the minimum standard; true workplace equity requires compassion, communication, and a commitment to treating all employees with dignity.