A pregnant quantity surveyor won £185,000 after her boss decided to fire her while she was off work with severe morning sickness.
Rachel Richardson was sacked a month after telling managers she was expecting, having missed meetings due to scans and been absent for nine days because she felt unwell.
She had only been at the nuclear engineering firm where she worked for eight months before her dismissal, having been brought in to oversee an important project, an employment tribunal heard.
Bosses told Miss Richardson the decision to let her go was made as she 'hadn't met objectives' set out when she joined.
However, the tribunal has ruled she was treated unfavourably as the decision to sack her was made whilst she was off work with morning sickness.
Miss Richardson's absences and impending maternity leave potentially posed a 'significant issue' to the company, the panel said.
Now, she has won a staggering £185,000 in compensation after her claims for unfair dismissal and pregnancy discrimination were upheld.
The Manchester tribunal heard Miss Richardson joined James Fisher Nuclear, which provides specialist engineering, manufacturing and technical services to the nuclear industry, as a senior quantity surveyor in September 2018.
She was in effect the commercial manager, the hearing was told, and was given targets to meet during her six-month probationary period.
This included being assigned to a 'very significant' project which had already been in progress for two years.
The tribunal heard Miss Richardson had been warned it was a 'problem' project at the Preston, Lancashire-based company, in which the team had 'gone rogue', overspending was 'rife' and progress was lacking.
It also heard the manager of the project had issues with Miss Richardson, and that others working on the project 'did not welcome' her introduction.
During one meeting in mid-December Miss Richardson was forced to leave a meeting after the unnamed project manager, described as a 'misogynistic bully', began 'shouting and using abusive language' towards her.
She made allegations of bullying towards the manager and returned to work in January following the Christmas shutdown of the company.
In March 2019, the panel heard Miss Richardson discovered she was pregnant and immediately told boss Alistair McCormick.
Later that month she had another scan, missing a monthly meeting with the client for whom the project she was working on was for.
The tribunal also heard Miss Richardson was absent from work due to 'severe morning sickness' for nine days in April.
Around the same time, Mr McCormick spoke to employees reporting to Miss Richardson who complained their relationship with her was 'strained' and that they could no longer work for her.
Mr McCormick told the tribunal these comments were 'the straw that broke the camel's back' and made Miss Richardson's position 'untenable'.
He sent an email to colleagues seeking advice on how to dismiss an employee in their probation period.
However, the tribunal considered it 'important' that when this email was sent, Miss Richardson was absent due to a pregnancy-related illness and had also recently failed to attend a meeting due to her pregnancy.
It noted: "At the time this email was sent: Miss Richardson was absent due to a pregnancy-related illness; had recently emailed Mr McCormick about her pregnancy; and had recently failed to attend a meeting with the client due to a pregnancy-related medical appointment.
"The tribunal finds that the project upon which Miss Richardson worked was one which was very important to James Fisher Nuclear and to Mr McCormick.
"The Tribunal can see that her being absent during her pregnancy (including from meetings with the client) and thereafter taking a period of maternity leave, may have been a significant issue for the company and Mr McCormick."
On April 29, the hearing was told Miss Richardson was sacked by Mr McCormick as she 'had not met her objectives'.
But in his evidence to the tribunal, Mr McCormick said the 'real reason' she was fired lay in her failure to prepare a required report for the client for her project.
Employment Judge Phil Allen concluded her company had failed to show her dismissal was not due to her pregnancy.
He said: "There was a lack of consistency from James Fisher Nuclear in the reason or reasons relied upon for dismissing Miss Richardson.
"The Tribunal finds that there are facts from which it could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that [the company] had discriminated against Miss Richardson because of pregnancy by treating her unfavourably during the protected period by dismissing her.
"The burden of proof was on James Fisher Nuclear to show the non-discriminatory reason for dismissal.
"[They have] not shown with cogent evidence that the dismissal was in no sense whatsoever because Miss Richardson was pregnant (or because of pregnancy-related absence).
"Miss Richardson was treated unfavourably because of her pregnancy by being dismissed."
Miss Richardson's claims of unfavourable treatment, unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages were all successful.
She was awarded £185,000 in compensation for injury to feelings and damages for discrimination relating to loss of earnings.
