A hairdresser expecting a child who was relegated to performing cleaning duties and making tea after revealing her pregnancy has secured £90,000 in damages.
Kayleigh Flanagan filed a lawsuit for discrimination upon observing an ‘immediate shift in attitude’ from her employer, Amy Jury, who removed her from the salon’s online booking platform shortly after her announcement.
She was subsequently restricted to attending to ‘walk-in’ clients and found herself mainly executing apprentice tasks, with ‘nothing else to occupy her time except cleaning the salon and preparing tea.’
Following a ‘significant decline’ in work relationships and two grievances addressed inadequately, Ms Flanagan chose to resign and initiated legal action against Ms Jury for ‘discriminatory treatment’ as a result of her pregnancy.
An employment tribunal has since awarded her £89,849 after determining that her superiors ‘sought to find faults in her performance’ and ‘were no longer committed to her’ following her announcement of pregnancy.
A hearing in Cambridge disclosed that Ms Flanagan commenced her role as a senior stylist at Envy hairdressers in Thatcham, West Berkshire, in June 2019.
Ms Jury, who owned the salon, stated that she was initially pleased for Ms Flanagan upon learning about her pregnancy but exhibited an ‘immediate’ change in demeanor.
Ms Flanagan noted there were ‘significant alterations to her role’ after her pregnancy was disclosed, with her regular clients reassigned to other stylists contrary to their preferences.
The tribunal remarked that Ms Flanagan had ‘nothing to do but clean the salon and make tea.’
Employment Judge Louise Brown stated: ‘We appreciated that she undertook this work voluntarily. Nevertheless, we concluded that her decision to clean, which she confirmed was a common action during spare time, did not negate the fact that she had been effectively demoted.’
‘Having had most of her hairdressing responsibilities removed by Ms Jury to a considerable extent, we determined that the majority of the tasks she executed were akin to those of an apprentice.’
The tribunal declared that Ms Flanagan experienced demotion as a result of her primary responsibilities being stripped from her, motivated ‘specifically by the announcement of her pregnancy.’
In January, Ms Jury commenced a disciplinary process against Ms Flanagan, alleging ‘underperformance.’ The salon owner claimed there were nine grievances that demanded ‘resubmissions and refunds,’ accusing her of delivering inadequate customer service to a client.
Ms Jury contended that this was the rationale behind removing the stylist from the online booking system, but refrained from informing her as ‘she wished to protect her confidence.’
However, no substantiating evidence for these complaints was introduced during the hearing, and the tribunal was ‘astonished’ by the fact that many complaints surfaced a year post the incidents. It was indicated that Ms Flanagan received a final written warning following the disciplinary hearing.
This warning became ‘widely known’ among the salon staff, leading to remarks that would ‘elicit laughter’ and made Ms Flanagan feel like the ‘butt of the joke.’
EJ Brown further added: ‘We found that there was a culture of derogatory language and inflammatory commentary directed at [Ms Flanagan], and that this treatment stemmed from her status as a worker on maternity leave.’
EJ Brown – who observed a ‘significant decline’ in the relationship between Ms Flanagan and her supervisor – noted a ‘comprehensive failure’ to investigate and address parts of her grievances.
The tribunal determined that the inadequate investigation of grievances and its outcomes became the ‘final straw’ for Ms Flanagan.
Now, she has been recompensed nearly £89,849.38.
Contact our news team via email at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For additional stories like this, visit our news page.
