UK Employer Who Fired Pregnant Worker by Text With 'Jazz Hands' Emoji Ordered to Pay £93K

A pregnant consultant has been awarded nearly £94,000 in compensation after being fired via text message—complete with a 'jazz hands' emoji—when she requested to work from home due to severe morning sickness.

Paula Miluska, an investment consultant at Roman Property Group (RPG) in Birmingham, was dismissed after informing her employer that she was struggling with pregnancy-related illness. A tribunal later ruled that her termination was discriminatory, ultimately finding in favour of the expecting mother.

A Shocking Dismissal Over Text

Miluska, who started working for RPG in March 2022, discovered she was pregnant in October. As she battled intense morning sickness, she requested to work remotely—a request initially met with understanding from her employer, Ammar Kabir.

However, on 1 December, Kabir abruptly messaged Miluska to inform her that her job was no longer viable, citing that the business was 'struggling' and required someone to be physically present. His message ended with the words: 'I hope to see you soon, we've got a lot of catching up to do outside of work'—punctuated by a 'jazz hands' emoji.

Miluska Stands Her Ground

Shocked by the sudden decision, Miluska responded immediately, questioning why she was being fired despite their agreement for her to work from home.

'I'm confused with what's going on,' she texted. 'I've been working remotely as agreed since I told you I was pregnant, to the best of my ability while suffering from maternity-related sickness.'

She went on to highlight that she had secured new business for the company despite her illness, only to be dismissed without explanation.

A Tribunal Takes Action

Feeling unfairly treated, Miluska took RPG to an employment tribunal, lodging multiple complaints, including:

• Unfair dismissal
• Pregnancy and maternity discrimination
• Unlawful deduction from wages
• Failure to provide itemised payslips
• Failure to provide written reasons for dismissal

The tribunal swiftly dismissed Kabir's defence, ruling that his message was a clear termination of employment. Employment Judge Garry Smart found that while Kabir had deliberately kept his wording 'obscure', the intention was obvious—Miluska had been dismissed due to her pregnancy-related absence.

Her claims were upheld, and she was awarded £93,616.74 in compensation.

Pregnancy Protections in the UK

While pregnancy itself does not shield an employee from disciplinary action, UK law makes it illegal to dismiss someone solely due to pregnancy.

Under the Equality Act 2010 and Employment Rights Act 1996, pregnant workers are protected from discrimination, meaning employers cannot dismiss them because of pregnancy-related illness or maternity leave.

Employment law expert Elizabeth McGlone criticised RPG's handling of the case, stating:

'Dismissing someone due to their inability to work in the office because of morning sickness is plainly unfavourable treatment (connected to pregnancy).'

She also highlighted how casual and unprofessional the employer had been:

'What is surprising about this case is that the employer purported to dismiss her over text—and thought it was appropriate to use an emoji. Clearly, they were frustrated by her absence, but to dispose of her in such a crass manner was always going to land them in trouble.'

A Broader Issue for Pregnant Workers

Miluska's case is not an isolated incident. Many expectant mothers face career repercussions due to pregnancy, despite legal protections.

In a similar case, administrative assistant Nikita Twitchen successfully sued her employer after being fired shortly after returning from maternity leave. She was awarded £28,706 in compensation.

Twitchen had initially been welcomed back to First Grade Projects (FGP), but after announcing her second pregnancy, communication with her employer became sporadic. Soon after, she was dismissed under vague claims of financial difficulties and 'structural changes'—claims the tribunal found to be false.

Judge Robin Harvard, who ruled in Twitchen's favour, noted that she had suffered 'real anxiety and distress', having been let go while pregnant and with a young child to support. Both cases serve as a stark warning to employers—mishandling pregnancy-related dismissals can lead to serious legal and reputational consequences.

Pregnancy discrimination remains a pressing issue in the UK workforce, despite strict legal protections. Employers who fail to handle pregnancy-related absences fairly and lawfully risk not only financial penalties but also severe reputational damage. The outcome of Miluska's case sends a clear message—treating expectant mothers unfairly will not go unpunished.