A line cook, suffering from severe nausea and vomiting during pregnancy and who was allegedly told by her female boss that she was “pregnant and not disabled” has been awarded €16,000 compensation for her discriminatory summary dismissal while pregnant.
This follows Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) Adjudicator, Lefre de Burgh, ordering fast food outlet operator Easy Meals Ltd, based in Millstreet, Co Cork, to pay Stacey Barrett €16,000 for the discriminatory summary dismissal on gender grounds.
Ms de Burgh ordered the firm to pay an additional €500 to Ms Barrett for a separate workplace breach.
Ms Barrett commenced working at the Millstreet fast food outlet on August 21st, 2020, in a part-time capacity as a line cook and also served customers.
On January 31st, 2021, Ms Barrett told her employer that she was pregnant and the following day, Ms Barrett was admitted to hospital with severe nausea and vomiting during pregnancy.
Severe complications can arise from this, including extreme dehydration, vomiting, dizziness and more, and Ms Barrett was suffering from all of these symptoms, and sometimes vomited in work.
Ms Barrett submitted that when she returned to work, she undertook her job as best she could and claimed her employer was aware of the difficulties the pregnancy was causing her.
Ms Barrett told the WRC hearing she was “vomiting up to 20 times a day, losing weight and severely dehydrated”.
Ms Barrett submitted that when she endeavoured to discuss the difficulties she was having in work, she alleged the line manager and business co-owner Samantha Cleary told her she was “pregnant and not disabled” and expected her to continue to do her work as normal.
In her findings, Ms de Burgh found that Ms Barrett was dismissed as a direct result of pregnancy-related illness in circumstances where her employer was on notice of her pregnancy.
Treatment
Ms de Burgh found the treatment meted out to Ms Barrett was “egregious” in nature, adding: “I note its foolishness in addition to its unlawfulness.”
She further accepted Ms Barrett's uncontested evidence that she was the subject of inappropriate comment at work by her line manager, Ms Cleary, relating to her pregnancy.
Ms de Burgh noted Ms Barrett’s distress both at the treatment to which she was subject and the economic and emotional toll it took on her, and in particular, in terms of the impact of the unlawful discrimination.
Ms de Burgh noted Ms Barrett’s inability to access social welfare supports which may otherwise have been available to her.
She stated that in employment law, “pregnant women are a particularly protected class of person legally, in recognition of the vulnerability – including economic vulnerability – which pregnancy and its attendant circumstances can bring”.
At the hearing, Ms Barrett submitted that she often vomited during her shift and alleged that if she missed time because of her illness during her midweek shift to 9pm, she was then forced by her employer to work until 10pm, or sometimes 11pm.
Ms Barrett continued to be ill from her pregnancy and advised her employer that she would not be able to attend work.
When Ms Barrett asked why she was removed from the roster for the week ending February 17th, her employer allegedly told her to “just be quiet”.
Support
At the hearing, Ms Barrett was asked if there were any efforts made to make her feel supported during the pregnancy at work, she said “No, absolutely not”.
Ms Barrett alleged that Ms Cleary told her anecdotes about when she was pregnant and told her that she “worked up until the day before she gave birth” and then “put the buggy in the back of the shop when her children were small, and worked away”.
On February 18th, Ms Barrett’s doctor certified her unfit for work and Ms Barrett texted her employer the following day to inform her that she would not be attending work.
In response, her bosses dismissed her via an email. The email, dated February 19th, 2021, read: “Hi Stacey, unfortunately we have to let you go. You have not been yourself the last few weeks.
“When you are at work it is like that you are not here. Not turning up to work on your days and letting me down and stuck for someone to cover you. I’ve got a business to look after and can’t be left stuck. After our talk nothing had changed. I’m sorry. All the best in your pregnancy, Claudio (Malizia) and Samantha (Cleary).”
Mr Malizia and Ms Cleary, who are a married couple, are directors of Easy Meals Ltd, and each has a 50 per cent share in the firm.
In response, Ms Barrett wrote to her former bosses: “Hi Samantha and Claudio, I think that’s really unfair. I have done my best considering how sick I have been and have a right to take sick days. I understand that it is difficult for you with a lack of staff but the responsibility to find cover does not fall on me.”
There was no appearance on behalf of the employer, Easy Meals Ltd, at the hearing. However, Ms de Burgh said she was satisfied that the employer was on notice of the hearing and awarded €16,000 for discriminatory pregnancy dismissal.
