A care home worker has won nearly £25,000 after her boss called her 'pathetic' for needing a tea break when she was five months pregnant.
Anna Burns needed to sit down for a short break when she was working on New Year's Day around four months before her due date, an employment tribunal heard.
A judge concluded her 'bullying' colleagues at Tralee Rest Home in Whitstable, Kent, thought she was 'treating her pregnancy as an excuse not to pull her weight'.
Ms Burns has now won her case for discrimination after the tribunal ruled her boss - Karina Vernau-Pope - developed a 'negative attitude towards her pregnancy', and told her that being pregnant 'is not an illness within itself'.
The hearing, held in south London, was told the claimant worked as a cleaner at the home for more than a year and a half between March 2019 until she resigned in November 2020.
In October 2019 she told the care home manager Ms Vernau-Pope that she was pregnant.
A meeting was held the following month when Ms Burns was put on a performance plan. She was told by Ms Vernau-Pope: "You have two weeks to improve or that's it."
Ms Burns told the tribunal: "This coincided with my first trimester and ongoing bouts of severe morning sickness and fatigue."
In late November the head of care Lorraine Standen, and a senior carer, Victoria Styles, approached Ms Burns about 10 minutes before she was due to end her shift, and said two of the rooms she was assigned to clean had not been vacuumed.
Ms Burns said: "They were condescending and confrontational, Victoria asked me in a sarcastic manner 'have you even hoovered today?' and stared at me in a demeaning way.
"I told her that I had hoovered the areas early in the day, but she had told me I was 'lying' and to redo two rooms and the hallway again. This involved carrying the hoover down steps at the front of the building for a second time and was unreasonably physically demanding.
"This was an unrealistic and unnecessary request putting pressure on me and was only made to make me feel inadequate."
Ms Vernau-Pope held a further meeting with Ms Burns shortly after this incident, when she accused Ms Burns of arguing with senior staff and 'being argumentative'.
The tribunal heard, in early December 2019, there was a 'light-hearted conversation' about Ms Burns' growing baby bump with other staff.
Ms Burns said: "The manager Karina made a comment in front of all other staff that if she saw me slowing down in the 11 weeks before my baby was due, she had the power to force me to start my maternity leave."
A risk assessment was carried out regarding Ms Burns' pregnancy and it was agreed she would be allowed to sit down when necessary and 'should take regular short breaks so that she wasn't standing for too long'.
Later that month, Ms Vernau-Pope handed Ms Burns a letter warning her of disciplinary action over frequent sick days.
The tribunal heard Ms Burns had had 10 days off sick on seven separate occasions but she told her boss these absences were pregnancy-related such as morning sickness and fatigue.
Ms Vernau-Pope replied by saying pregnancy is 'not in itself an illness'. On New Year's Day 2020, Ms Burns had a five minute break, as per her risk assessment, to have a cup of tea and short sit down.
Her bosses accused her of taking at least 20 minutes on this morning break and refused to let her have another break in the afternoon.
The tribunal heard Ms Vernau-Pope told Ms Burns to go home early and that they would discuss it the following day. Ms Burns said her boss called her 'pathetic'.
The next day Ms Burns went off sick and filed a grievance alleging pregnancy and maternity discrimination due to an 'ongoing culture of bullying and discrimination due to her pregnancy'.
Shortly before Ms Burns was due to start her maternity leave in March, Ms Vernau-Pope removed her from the staff WhatsApp group.
The tribunal heard Ms Burns resigned in November 2020, saying she had decided not to return after her maternity leave.
Employment Judge Corinna Ferguson ruled the incident when Ms Burns was called a liar and made to redo two rooms she had already vacuumed was pregnancy discrimination.
She also ruled Ms Burns being called 'pathetic' was discrimination. The judge said: "Given that it is not in dispute Ms Burns had a good relationship with all staff before her pregnancy, and both incidents involved her being accused of not doing her job properly, the most likely explanation for their conduct is that they had formed the view that she was treating her pregnancy as an excuse not to pull her weight.
It was unjustified to use the word pathetic, whether directed at Ms Burns or the situation. We find this was unfavourable treatment, and it was because of Ms Vernau-Pope's negative attitude towards Ms Burns and her pregnancy."
Ms Burns was awarded £24,460.52 in compensation.
Have you got a story to share? We want to hear all about it. Email us at yourmirror@mirror.co.uk
