Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Wwyd? Pregnant employee. Don’t want to be sued but, ah!

306 replies

HavanaOhna · 06/08/2026 21:13

I’m manager for a small company, there are about 8 employees so very small. We had a lovely young woman started in the new year who found out she was pregnant shortly after. Absolutely fine.

we’ve been very supportive as her pregnancy has been complicated, loads of additional scans, scares, admissions. We’ve always told her to take the time she needs for these, paid and to take extra time after them as they can be taxing. Sometimes she takes the whole day for one scan and that’s ok.

The issue is she’s now 7 months, seems incredibly poorly but won’t go on sick due to finances (has exhausted sick pay, this would be unpaid now). She’s WFH, at her request and our blessing, and is doing I’d say the bare minimum. Just scraping by work wise. Every time I see her on teams she looks gaunt, and exhausted, and has admitted that she’s tearful, not sleeping, and has had further pregnancy issues. These are all supported by documentation.

Then a few days ago she came into the office. First time in months. She could barely sit at her desk, she wasn’t doing much all day, up and down to the loo, extended lunch break. I really feel for her. We had a wellbeing meeting and she’s insisting she’s fine. I organised an occupational health session and she reiterated to them she’s fine, but you can see she’s on her knees.

I don’t really know what to do. She’s vital at work and although things are being done she’s working at I’d say 50% capacity. If this is mentioned, she promises she will sort it out so ends up working into the evening (which again we don’t want). A colleague became so frustrated the other day she pointedly asked her why she doesn’t go on maternity early and this wasn’t met well. Others are having to pick up the slack heavily, and some colleagues have started to avoid her completely work wise.

HR (no in house, outsourced) said not much we can do as she cannot be forced to take maternity leave early and if she says she’s not sick she’s not sick but I don’t know how we can do another 8 weeks going forward. I feel team morale is low, she is obviously unwell.

OP posts:
OVienna · 07/08/2026 13:20

I also would just pay for good advice from an employment lawyer, I would not rely on an outsourced HR company. I guess some might be fine, for very straightforward situations, but that is not this.

Find a lawyer and put your foot down with the CEO saying you at least need an exploratory meeting. Can you tell him you are frightened and dig out some ET rulings (these are public) showing how much risk the company could be exposed to if you get this wrong?

Seajaye · 07/08/2026 13:29

Statutory sick pay pay is no longer reimbursed to small UK employers, that's why it can be a burden and there is a maximum duration .The problem here is that she's exhausted her contractual sick pay entitlement , and statutory sick pay alone isn't enough to live on if she is on her own. It should not be the employers responsibility to pay both contractual sick pay and statutory sick pay especially when NI contributions for employers have gone up. There ought to be a universal rate paid out of these contributions.

It might be helpful.for her to be signed posted to universal credit if her income is going to be insufficient .

It's unfair to other team workers who have to pick up the slack but unfortunately when a team member is off sick in a small organisation, it's normal for others to have to help cover. The company is trying to recruit her maternity leave cover but until someone suitable is appointed the team will have to help out and the employer has to hope team morale and motivation doesn't sink further and other employees leave.

Get some qualified legal advice here as the damage arising out of any mismanagement could be far reaching

ThreadGuardDog · 07/08/2026 13:30

StraightTalkingTina · 07/08/2026 11:59

That is unlawful discrimination.

If you can’t afford to provide the necessary employee benefits, statutory or otherwise, you shouldn’t be running a business that requires you to employ people.

That poster won’t be the only one in that situation. You clearly don’t understand the pressures of running a small business - for many, employing a woman likely to have children at some point could prove disastrous.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

MxCactus · 07/08/2026 13:32

Anarchy99 · 07/08/2026 12:54

Outside of a utopian civilisation, do you not see that that could have a negative impact on women’s employment?

It’s a tough balance but nobody wants women to be seen as a liability that will cost the employer more.

It is naive to believe that having so many extra protections won’t affect recruitment choices, even if some people feel it’s the right thing to do morally.

It doesn't. The countries that have stronger maternity and pregnancy protections for women have MORE women in senior leadership positions, not less.

It's what we need if we want more women getting ahead.

StraightTalkingTina · 07/08/2026 13:38

ThreadGuardDog · 07/08/2026 13:30

That poster won’t be the only one in that situation. You clearly don’t understand the pressures of running a small business - for many, employing a woman likely to have children at some point could prove disastrous.

acknowledging that as an employer they are unlawfully discriminating doesn’t mean I don’t understand, does it.

and just because they are a small business doesn’t exempt them from lawful employment practice.

the poster admitted they proactively discriminate against women.

ThreadGuardDog · 07/08/2026 13:40

MxCactus · 07/08/2026 12:45

"Unless men get pregnant, then you can’t compare them. Women are the ones who need the time off/adjustments because they are the ones physically pregnant and giving birth."

At least we agree on that! Absolutely women are the ones with the health burden of having children. Men have zero health burden but still get the children with no impact to their bodies or careers. Women's careers are hugely impacted by kids, unlike mens. Women should have MORE protections in pregnancy/mat leave otherwise we end up in an even more unequal society.

If you want all industries to continue to be led by men then go ahead and don't give women better protections - but tbh look at how much pregnant women and mothers are discriminated against at work - we desperately need more protections.

And round and round we go, because introducing more protections means that employers are going to avoid employing women of childbearing age because they simply don’t want the hassle. That may get me flamed, but it doesn’t make it any less a fact.

BrokenBiscuitss · 07/08/2026 13:42

Can I just point out that many people running small businesses are "young women". I'm self-employed, no employees, but I can only imagine the stress of having to handle situations like this as a small business owner.
I genuinely think people who have been salaries their whole lives have zero conception of just how tight and stressful things can be.
Once you've paid for materials, suppliers, rent, equipment, taxes, licenses, training, salaries, your own salary, and put whatever you can scrape together aside for cash flow, there really isnt always that much swashing around to "just hire" someone on top of an employee who is failing to do her job.
Many small business owners are also women, also mothers, also dealing with health issues as well as the anxiety of overheads etc keeping them up at night.

I feel very bad for this employee as it genuinely sounds like she is being physically ravaged by this pregnancy and she sounds ill. Obviously the OP will need to do right by her out of basic humaneness. However, I dont believe she didnt know she was pregnant at the point of applying for the job, and I believe it is ethically wrong to have applied for a job when she knew she would soon need to take the time away.

NotTheHRPolice · 07/08/2026 13:47

JamJar187 · 06/08/2026 21:51

Agreed - under 2 years service, you have grounds for dismissal on performance grounds.

I'd look to get rid - as another poster said, in a small team, low morale can be awful and devastating for the rest picking up the slack.

I spy, with my little eye, someone that wants to spend a lot of time and money in court.

This is such unbelievably dodgy advice I honestly can’t believe it’s been suggested.

StraightTalkingTina · 07/08/2026 13:49

MxCactus · 07/08/2026 13:32

It doesn't. The countries that have stronger maternity and pregnancy protections for women have MORE women in senior leadership positions, not less.

It's what we need if we want more women getting ahead.

An employers with 50% representation at the top are 30% more profitable. Thats a proven statistic.

This perceived issue of supporting women through all their lifetime needs comes at an unnecessary and avoidable cost, is literally man made.

ThreadGuardDog · 07/08/2026 13:51

StraightTalkingTina · 07/08/2026 13:38

acknowledging that as an employer they are unlawfully discriminating doesn’t mean I don’t understand, does it.

and just because they are a small business doesn’t exempt them from lawful employment practice.

the poster admitted they proactively discriminate against women.

There is no law saying employers have to have quotas of certain demographics. It’s discriminatory to ask a female job candidate if she intends to have a family or to make assumptions, but beyond that, at the end of the day the employer is free to take on whoever they choose.

KnickerlessParsons · 07/08/2026 13:57

Surely you can performance manage her, even though she's pregnant? You've made efforts to support her, which she's rejected and declared herself fit for work.

So if she's fit for work, she needs to be working at capacity, or otherwise drop her hours/take mat leave early/do another role temporarily that's better suited to her current situation (ie while she's pregnant).
If it was eg a heavy lifting job the employer would be expected to give the pregnat woman alternative duties during pregnancy.

StraightTalkingTina · 07/08/2026 14:03

Anarchy99 · 07/08/2026 12:21

So the employee has no responsibility at all?

Presumably you think the employee should be given full paid time off until she goes on mat leave, because she had financial issues?

What about the staff who have to cover?

No, its not because she has financial issues.

because she has pregnancy complications that are affecting her health, and her ability to work, which are protected in law, of which I also know she is avoiding necessary sick leave due to loss of income.

i would make further adjustments with her agreement. Reduce her hours per week, manage the redistribution of workload and get a temp in asap.

I would not reduce her pay because of my management discretion and my ability to solve the situation for the whole team.

These actions would protect the employee from pregnancy discrimination and provide a duty of care, and, protect my employer from the same or eventual constructive dismissal.

it’s really not difficult.

IwouldlikeanewTV · 07/08/2026 14:06

SunsetDrifter · 07/08/2026 07:56

You make it sound like you are paying her to go to appointments out the goodness of your heart, you legally have to do this!!! You can only force someone to start their maternity leave early if they go off sick for a pregnancy related illness in the last 4 weeks before their due date. I say suck it up. If you employ females there is always the risk they will get pregnant and will cost you, thankfully there are laws in place to protect the pregnant woman.

I am currently pregnant and have a fantastic employer, granted I work for the civil service so it is completely different, I took a day off after finding out our baby had an abnormality at my 20 week scan (I just couldn't concentrate, my mind was elsewhere), my boss offered me more time off or to reduce my hours longer term to help, I did decline but she's been fabulous. I am having more scans etc now as a result, but it is of course completely fine, my boss always says "don't rush back". I was unwell when it was hot recently, absolutely no issue me stopping at lunch time when it got too hot (I'm 100% wfh so no aircon in my house). Thing is I am a reliable employee and my boss knows when I return from mat leave I will be back to 100%, this is the second child I have had whilst employed here, the first I was actually already pregnant when I started, again no issues.

I'd hate to work for somewhere like this and feel very thankful I know I can slow down without any issues if I need to as I enter my third trimester. I worked up until my due date last time and will do the same this time. I'm actually the only person in my team who has never had at least 2 months plus off sick for "stress" or "anxiety" (our job really isn't that stressful, it has stressful moments to meet deadlines but it isn't constant!), at least with pregnancy it has a very defined end point! I've picked up extra work when my colleagues have been off sick for prolonged amounts of time so I don't feel bad doing the same now.

you work for the civil service. Very different to a small company that needs staff to work to pay the salaries. Public sector isn’t real life.

StraightTalkingTina · 07/08/2026 14:11

ThreadGuardDog · 07/08/2026 13:51

There is no law saying employers have to have quotas of certain demographics. It’s discriminatory to ask a female job candidate if she intends to have a family or to make assumptions, but beyond that, at the end of the day the employer is free to take on whoever they choose.

Of course they are.

this particular company however follows a discriminatory recruitment process by only hiring men or older women. If any young female candidate who applied and was rejected became aware of that and could evidence it, they would win a direct sex discrimination case at tribunal. Without ever being employed by them.

there is sufficient case law dating back to the 90’s that evidences this.

nomas · 07/08/2026 14:11

HavanaOhna · 06/08/2026 21:30

This is what it comes down to but unfortunately pregnancy discrimination is so big, you cannot force someone pregnant on sick leave nor to take early maternity- both are tribunal worthy.

Can she be dismissed after her maternity leave? How does her probationary period work with her Mat leave?

pouletvous · 07/08/2026 14:17

who is covering her mat leave? Get them started sooner rather than later

i suspect she will be off in 4 weeks anyhow

MyrtlethePurpleTurtle · 07/08/2026 14:22

MxCactus · 07/08/2026 13:32

It doesn't. The countries that have stronger maternity and pregnancy protections for women have MORE women in senior leadership positions, not less.

It's what we need if we want more women getting ahead.

Nope. Sort of the other way round, research indicates that higher numbers of female leaders strongly correlate with robust paternity and shared parental leave policies!

ByQuaintAzureWasp · 07/08/2026 14:23

Could you agree that she takes annual leave in advance for her last 4 weeks ... using what she will accrued whilst on maternity leave?

ThreadGuardDog · 07/08/2026 14:35

ByQuaintAzureWasp · 07/08/2026 14:23

Could you agree that she takes annual leave in advance for her last 4 weeks ... using what she will accrued whilst on maternity leave?

That would be a one way trip to an employment tribunal. The only thing that can be done is to trigger maternity leave the first time she takes a pregnancy related sick day in the last four weeks before her due date.

BumpyWinds · 07/08/2026 14:37

Heavily caveated as this is advice given from (the paid version) of ChatGPT based on the original post, but it reads logically (I have the responsibility for staffing matters in my business, with the assistance of outsourced HR also but am not a qualified HR professional):

Assuming this is UK employment law, I think the outsourced HR advice is too simplistic. They are right that the employer cannot simply tell her to start maternity leave early because she looks unwell or is performing poorly. But “she says she’s fine, so there’s nothing we can do” misses some important employer obligations.

The key problem is that her reduced performance appears, on the facts given, to be very closely connected with her pregnancy and pregnancy-related ill health. EHRC guidance is explicit that an employer can address poor performance by a pregnant employee where it is genuinely unrelated to pregnancy, but poor performance linked to pregnancy or pregnancy-related absence must not negatively affect her performance assessment. Putting her through capability management because she is exhausted, attending hospital, struggling physically or otherwise affected by pregnancy could amount to pregnancy discrimination.

So I wouldn't frame the immediate conversation as, “You're only working at 50%, improve or face capability.” I'd frame it as: “The current arrangement is plainly not working safely or sustainably. We need to establish what work you can reasonably do and adjust the arrangement accordingly.”

There are several things I think the employer should be doing.

  • Revisit the pregnancy risk assessment now. This isn't a one-off form completed when someone announces their pregnancy. HSE says the individual assessment must be reviewed as pregnancy progresses and when circumstances change, taking account of medical recommendations. Given hospital admissions, obvious physical difficulty and reported sleeplessness/distress, the circumstances have clearly changed.
  • Get much more useful occupational-health advice. “Employee says she is fine” isn't really an adequate OH outcome. The questions should be functional: Is she medically fit to work her contracted hours? Should her hours be temporarily reduced? Are additional rest breaks required? Is evening work contraindicated? What duties can she safely perform? Are there limitations on attendance at the workplace? What adjustments are recommended, and for how long? The employer can then make decisions about work rather than trying to diagnose her. [My edit to add - you can ask the employee to allow you to contact her GP to obtain a report though this is often done through OH)
  • Set boundaries around the adjustment. WFH should not mean “do whatever you can and secretly catch up until 10pm”. They could temporarily reduce workload, prioritise essential duties, remove deadlines, introduce additional breaks or amend start/finish times. Acas specifically suggests changed hours, homeworking and extra breaks in difficult pregnancies.
  • Plan cover. The fact that she is “vital” is actually the company's operational problem, not hers. EHRC specifically says temporary cover can be recruited where pregnancy-related sickness is likely to be lengthy. In an eight-person company this will hurt, but allowing seven colleagues to absorb an undefined workload for two months is unlikely to end well either.
  • Manage the team separately. The colleague saying “why don't you just go on maternity leave?” needs shutting down. It may have arisen from understandable frustration, but comments pressuring a pregnant employee to commence maternity leave are precisely the sort of thing an employer should prevent. Employers can potentially be responsible for discriminatory treatment by colleagues unless they've taken reasonable preventative steps.

There is also an important health-and-safety point which the post doesn't seem to appreciate. If the risk assessment identifies a significant work-related risk to her or the baby, the statutory sequence is broadly: adjust her working conditions/hours; if that doesn't work, offer suitable alternative work on the same terms; and, if neither is possible, suspend her from work on full pay on maternity health-and-safety grounds. That is quite different from telling her to go off sick unpaid. Whether that route applies here depends on there actually being a risk arising from the work/working conditions, rather than simply her underlying pregnancy making her generally unwell, so I'd want competent HR/legal advice before using it.

There is one other wrinkle. Pregnancy-related sickness is recorded separately and should not be counted towards ordinary absence triggers. And once she reaches the four weeks before the expected week of childbirth, if she is actually absent because of pregnancy-related illness, statutory maternity leave starts automatically from the following day. So the poster's “another eight weeks” may not necessarily play out exactly as they think.

But on the facts posted — previously apparently satisfactory employee, complicated pregnancy, admissions/scans, visible physical deterioration, sleeplessness, crying, inability to sit comfortably, 50% output — the obvious causal explanation is pregnancy-related ill health. Trying to separate “performance” from that and run a conventional capability process would be quite risky.

What I would probably recommend to that manager is a documented meeting along roughly these lines: we are not asking you to start maternity leave; we are concerned that the current working arrangement is neither sustainable for you nor operationally sustainable for the business; we will obtain updated medical/OH guidance, redo the pregnancy risk assessment, agree clearly defined temporary duties/hours and arrange cover for the balance. We also do not want you working beyond those agreed hours to compensate.

That approach protects her, but it also recognises something that sometimes gets lost in pregnancy cases: the employer is allowed to manage the work. Pregnancy protection doesn't require seven other employees to endlessly absorb an undefined shortfall. What it changes is how you manage the shortfall and what consequences you can attach to something caused by the pregnancy.

If I were advising the company, I would also query the outsourced HR provider quite firmly on why they haven't suggested an updated risk assessment and a functional OH referral. Those are the two most obvious next steps from the facts given.

ThreadGuardDog · 07/08/2026 14:38

nomas · 07/08/2026 14:11

Can she be dismissed after her maternity leave? How does her probationary period work with her Mat leave?

The OP can’t use anything pregnancy related to assess performance during probation. So sick days and under performance issues would be a minefield.

Yetone · 07/08/2026 14:40

IwouldlikeanewTV · 07/08/2026 14:06

you work for the civil service. Very different to a small company that needs staff to work to pay the salaries. Public sector isn’t real life.

Yes it is very easy for people to be generous with tax payers money.

ThreadGuardDog · 07/08/2026 14:42

BumpyWinds · 07/08/2026 14:37

Heavily caveated as this is advice given from (the paid version) of ChatGPT based on the original post, but it reads logically (I have the responsibility for staffing matters in my business, with the assistance of outsourced HR also but am not a qualified HR professional):

Assuming this is UK employment law, I think the outsourced HR advice is too simplistic. They are right that the employer cannot simply tell her to start maternity leave early because she looks unwell or is performing poorly. But “she says she’s fine, so there’s nothing we can do” misses some important employer obligations.

The key problem is that her reduced performance appears, on the facts given, to be very closely connected with her pregnancy and pregnancy-related ill health. EHRC guidance is explicit that an employer can address poor performance by a pregnant employee where it is genuinely unrelated to pregnancy, but poor performance linked to pregnancy or pregnancy-related absence must not negatively affect her performance assessment. Putting her through capability management because she is exhausted, attending hospital, struggling physically or otherwise affected by pregnancy could amount to pregnancy discrimination.

So I wouldn't frame the immediate conversation as, “You're only working at 50%, improve or face capability.” I'd frame it as: “The current arrangement is plainly not working safely or sustainably. We need to establish what work you can reasonably do and adjust the arrangement accordingly.”

There are several things I think the employer should be doing.

  • Revisit the pregnancy risk assessment now. This isn't a one-off form completed when someone announces their pregnancy. HSE says the individual assessment must be reviewed as pregnancy progresses and when circumstances change, taking account of medical recommendations. Given hospital admissions, obvious physical difficulty and reported sleeplessness/distress, the circumstances have clearly changed.
  • Get much more useful occupational-health advice. “Employee says she is fine” isn't really an adequate OH outcome. The questions should be functional: Is she medically fit to work her contracted hours? Should her hours be temporarily reduced? Are additional rest breaks required? Is evening work contraindicated? What duties can she safely perform? Are there limitations on attendance at the workplace? What adjustments are recommended, and for how long? The employer can then make decisions about work rather than trying to diagnose her. [My edit to add - you can ask the employee to allow you to contact her GP to obtain a report though this is often done through OH)
  • Set boundaries around the adjustment. WFH should not mean “do whatever you can and secretly catch up until 10pm”. They could temporarily reduce workload, prioritise essential duties, remove deadlines, introduce additional breaks or amend start/finish times. Acas specifically suggests changed hours, homeworking and extra breaks in difficult pregnancies.
  • Plan cover. The fact that she is “vital” is actually the company's operational problem, not hers. EHRC specifically says temporary cover can be recruited where pregnancy-related sickness is likely to be lengthy. In an eight-person company this will hurt, but allowing seven colleagues to absorb an undefined workload for two months is unlikely to end well either.
  • Manage the team separately. The colleague saying “why don't you just go on maternity leave?” needs shutting down. It may have arisen from understandable frustration, but comments pressuring a pregnant employee to commence maternity leave are precisely the sort of thing an employer should prevent. Employers can potentially be responsible for discriminatory treatment by colleagues unless they've taken reasonable preventative steps.

There is also an important health-and-safety point which the post doesn't seem to appreciate. If the risk assessment identifies a significant work-related risk to her or the baby, the statutory sequence is broadly: adjust her working conditions/hours; if that doesn't work, offer suitable alternative work on the same terms; and, if neither is possible, suspend her from work on full pay on maternity health-and-safety grounds. That is quite different from telling her to go off sick unpaid. Whether that route applies here depends on there actually being a risk arising from the work/working conditions, rather than simply her underlying pregnancy making her generally unwell, so I'd want competent HR/legal advice before using it.

There is one other wrinkle. Pregnancy-related sickness is recorded separately and should not be counted towards ordinary absence triggers. And once she reaches the four weeks before the expected week of childbirth, if she is actually absent because of pregnancy-related illness, statutory maternity leave starts automatically from the following day. So the poster's “another eight weeks” may not necessarily play out exactly as they think.

But on the facts posted — previously apparently satisfactory employee, complicated pregnancy, admissions/scans, visible physical deterioration, sleeplessness, crying, inability to sit comfortably, 50% output — the obvious causal explanation is pregnancy-related ill health. Trying to separate “performance” from that and run a conventional capability process would be quite risky.

What I would probably recommend to that manager is a documented meeting along roughly these lines: we are not asking you to start maternity leave; we are concerned that the current working arrangement is neither sustainable for you nor operationally sustainable for the business; we will obtain updated medical/OH guidance, redo the pregnancy risk assessment, agree clearly defined temporary duties/hours and arrange cover for the balance. We also do not want you working beyond those agreed hours to compensate.

That approach protects her, but it also recognises something that sometimes gets lost in pregnancy cases: the employer is allowed to manage the work. Pregnancy protection doesn't require seven other employees to endlessly absorb an undefined shortfall. What it changes is how you manage the shortfall and what consequences you can attach to something caused by the pregnancy.

If I were advising the company, I would also query the outsourced HR provider quite firmly on why they haven't suggested an updated risk assessment and a functional OH referral. Those are the two most obvious next steps from the facts given.

Excellent advice.

nomas · 07/08/2026 14:48

ThreadGuardDog · 07/08/2026 14:38

The OP can’t use anything pregnancy related to assess performance during probation. So sick days and under performance issues would be a minefield.

Thanks. Does Mat leave count within the probationary period?

PrettyLittleRose · 07/08/2026 15:02

fromgothtoboss · 07/08/2026 12:41

I’m happy for my taxes to support this. I see places like America and the type of support and rights they have with work and mat leave etc and it’s awful. Our birth rate is also declining.

Good for you if you are 'happy to see your taxes' supporting women like the OP's new pregnant employee, in having half of her pregnancy off 'sick' and then a year off on maternity (and then possibly doing it again the following year.)

Many people are not.

Swipe left for the next trending thread