Paula Miluska, Woman fired with jazz hands emoji while pregnant, has been awarded nearly £94,000 in compensation after an employment tribunal ruled her dismissal was discriminatory.
The incident, which took place at Birmingham-based Roman Property Group Limited, involved her employer, Ammar Kabir, sending a text message that effectively ended her employment while she was suffering from severe pregnancy-related sickness. The tribunal found that her dismissal was unfair and directly linked to her pregnancy, leading to a significant payout.
The Unjust Dismissal of Paula Miluska
Paula Miluska, an investment consultant, joined Roman Property Group Limited in March 2022. She discovered she was pregnant in October of the same year and soon began experiencing severe morning sickness.
By November, her condition had worsened to the point where she requested to work from home, a request supported by her midwife. She reached out to her boss, Ammar Kabir, informing him that her pregnancy nausea was peaking and inquired about a required health and safety assessment for pregnant employees.
Initially, Kabir’s response was neutral, simply asking how she was feeling. However, as work pressures mounted, he expressed concerns about falling behind and asked whether she could return to the office or, at the very least, work shorter days.
Unfortunately, Miluska’s condition continued to deteriorate, and she informed her boss that she might need hospitalization if her sickness did not subside. She apologized for being unable to support the team during this period, demonstrating her willingness to work despite her debilitating illness.
Read : Fort Worth Independent School District Teacher Fired for Urging ICE to Raid School
On December 1, Miluska received a message from Kabir, which effectively terminated her employment. He stated that the company needed someone who could be physically present at the office, clarifying that she should not take it personally.
Read : Yemen’s Houthi Group Attacks Israeli Ships with Drones and Missiles in Red Sea
The message ended with a jazz hands emoji and a seemingly friendly note about catching up outside of work. This casual approach to dismissing an employee, particularly a pregnant woman facing medical challenges, was later deemed highly inappropriate and discriminatory by the tribunal.
The Employment Tribunal’s Verdict
Following her dismissal, Miluska challenged the decision in an employment tribunal. The case centered on whether her termination was linked to her pregnancy and whether it constituted unfair dismissal. The tribunal found that there were no prior discussions about a formal termination and that Kabir’s message objectively signified the end of her employment.
The tribunal ruled that the company had no legitimate reason to terminate Miluska, as she had been fulfilling her role remotely despite her medical condition. It also noted that Kabir failed to conduct a required health and safety assessment for pregnant employees and did not offer reasonable accommodations for her situation.
The judge, Garry Smart, rejected Kabir’s argument that Miluska was not dismissed and upheld her claims of pregnancy discrimination and unfair dismissal. As a result, Miluska was awarded £93,616.74 in compensation, covering lost earnings, damages for injury to feelings, and maternity-related discrimination.
The tribunal’s decision highlights the importance of protecting pregnant workers from unjust treatment and reinforces the legal obligations of employers to accommodate employees dealing with medical conditions related to pregnancy.
Lessons for Employers and Employees
This case serves as a significant reminder to employers about the legal protections in place for pregnant workers. The UK’s Equality Act 2010 explicitly prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy and maternity. Employers must ensure that pregnant employees receive necessary accommodations, including flexible working arrangements and health and safety assessments.
For employees, the case underscores the importance of knowing their rights. Pregnant workers are entitled to reasonable adjustments, and any dismissal related to pregnancy is likely to be deemed unfair by employment tribunals. If faced with similar situations, employees should document all communications, seek legal advice, and file claims to protect their rights.
Miluska’s case also highlights the inappropriate use of casual or vague communication when handling serious employment matters. The use of a jazz hands emoji in the termination message was seen as unprofessional and dismissive, further exacerbating the unfair treatment she received. Employers must ensure that termination decisions are communicated clearly, formally, and in compliance with employment laws.
Overall, this ruling reaffirms the importance of workplace protections for pregnant employees and serves as a warning to companies that failing to support their staff during pregnancy can result in significant legal and financial consequences.