An employment tribunal has ruled that Nilgun Kayahan Kolan was unjustly dismissed from her position at a Marks and Spencer bakery due to her pregnancy. The decision, announced on April 25, 2025, sheds light on the serious implications of workplace discrimination against expectant mothers.
Kolan, who was employed at the Watford branch of the well-known high street chain for a brief period in October 2023, faced significant challenges during her employment. Initially, she was assured by her employer that she would not have to lift anything heavier than 5kg due to a pre-existing back problem. However, after being transferred to the Watford branch, she was required to lift heavy boxes, leading to physical strain.
On Saturday, October 28, 2023, Kolan informed her branch manager, Caroline Bowie, about the pain she was experiencing in her back and groin from carrying large boxes. She had previously trained in Uxbridge, where her duties did not involve heavy lifting. In her witness statement, Kolan expressed her distress: "I needed clarity on what I was supposed to do because I could no longer endure the physical strain and lack of support."
During this conversation, Kolan disclosed her pregnancy, expecting Bowie to acknowledge her concerns and discuss possible adjustments to her role. Instead, she recalled, "The moment I mentioned my pregnancy, Caroline's expression shifted. Her face dropped and she immediately dismissed me, stating: 'I'm sorry, we don't have any suitable jobs for you.' She then added: 'I can't move you anywhere else because your English isn't enough.'"
This abrupt dismissal left Kolan feeling unsupported and confused. She described how Bowie patted her shoulder twice before it became clear that she wanted her to leave. "She did not ask a single question about my pregnancy, my health, or whether I needed support. She made no effort to discuss alternative roles or reasonable adjustments," Kolan noted.
After the meeting, Kolan waited for half an hour, hoping someone would come to discuss her situation further. Instead, she was met with a cold directive from Bowie: "You can leave your card and go." Kolan later stated, "I did as she said, but I did not hand in my swipe card willingly as an act of resignation – I did not want to resign – I handed it over because I was told to. At that moment it became clear to me that I had been dismissed."
The tribunal heard that Kolan did not receive any formal notice of dismissal, nor was she given the right to appeal. She was sent away without any documentation explaining her termination, which left her feeling vulnerable and confused about her rights. Bowie, on the other hand, claimed that she had congratulated Kolan on her pregnancy and had discussed potential alternative positions with her.
However, the tribunal found that the branch manager believed Kolan's English proficiency was inadequate for cashier duties, and the only other job with a similar shift pattern involved heavy lifting. Bowie maintained that their conversation was friendly and that she encouraged Kolan to consider other roles. "As far as I was concerned, Nilgun could have continued her role in the bakery throughout her pregnancy," Bowie stated.
Despite these claims, the tribunal unanimously concluded that Kolan did not voluntarily resign from her position. Although she was not explicitly told she was dismissed, the communication from Bowie clearly indicated that her services were no longer required. In a written conclusion, the tribunal judge stated, "The tribunal, in particular, concludes that, in their context, the words that 'we have no jobs available for you' clearly indicated a dismissal, especially when nothing was added to them to indicate a different position."
The tribunal emphasized that any doubt regarding the dismissal was resolved by the instruction given to Kolan to hand over her swipe card and locker keys. The judge concluded that the dismissal was indeed caused by Kolan's disclosure of her pregnancy, which was the principal reason for her termination.
This case highlights the critical issue of workplace discrimination against pregnant employees, emphasizing the need for companies to uphold fair practices and provide necessary support to their staff. The tribunal's ruling serves as a reminder that expectant mothers should not face undue hardships or discrimination in their workplace.
As society progresses towards greater equality and inclusivity, it is essential for employers to ensure that their policies reflect a commitment to supporting all employees, particularly those who are pregnant. The outcome of this tribunal case may prompt Marks and Spencer and other employers to reevaluate their practices to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
In the wake of this ruling, it remains to be seen how Marks and Spencer will respond and whether they will implement changes to their policies to protect the rights of pregnant employees. Stakeholders and advocates for workplace equality will be watching closely to ensure that this case leads to meaningful changes in the treatment of expectant mothers in the workplace.
Ultimately, the tribunal's decision underscores the importance of fostering an inclusive work environment where all employees feel valued and supported, regardless of their circumstances.
