Bosses told pregnant worker to ‘get TV for bedroom so you have less sex’

Mother-of-three wins payout after being subjected to ‘foul and abusive language’ by managers because she was expecting her third child

A mother was told to get a television for her bedroom by her bosses so she would “have less sex and be less likely to get pregnant”, a tribunal heard.
The mother-of-three has won a £16,000 payout for pregnancy discrimination after a tribunal heard a manager told her to “get a television for her bedroom” so she would “have less sex and be less likely to be pregnant”.
Poppy Duggan took Kelly Traffic Management to an employment tribunal, claiming she was treated unfavourably because she was pregnant with her third child.
The 31-year-old was subjected to a “campaign of discriminatory conduct” including “foul and abusive language” by her managers – who were a married couple, an employment judge said.
Ruling in favour of Ms Duggan, the tribunal said maternity discrimination could “attract higher rewards” as it was meant to be a “period of joy”.
Her claim of pregnancy and maternity discrimination was upheld in part by the tribunal, but her claim of constructive unfair dismissal failed.
Ms Duggan began working for the company for the second time in January 2019, having spent two years with them between August 2016 and August 2018, the Midlands West employment tribunal was told.
She had been promoted to team leader, and was responsible for dealing with notices and approvals, the tribunal heard.
In January, two days after rejoining the company, Ms Duggan told managers Sarah and Daniel Abbott, who were a married couple, that she was pregnant.
Mr Abbott told her she should “get a television for her bedroom” so she would “have less sex and be less likely to be pregnant”, the tribunal was told.
Later that month, when she told Mrs Abbott she intended to return to work after giving birth, Mrs Abbott said, “What with three kids, how is that going to work?”, the tribunal heard.
Mrs Abbott later admitted making the comment but denied it had been said maliciously, the tribunal was told.
Having taken two days off work to rest on the advice of her midwife, after suffering a panic attack, she was asked by her managers to stay behind after a regular meeting, the tribunal heard.
The tribunal heard that Mr Abbott, with Mrs Abbott present, “berated” the worker about mistakes in a report.
Ms Duggan, who did not understand what he was referring to, was subjected to a verbal attack by Mr Abbott who “began screaming foul and abusive language at her”, the tribunal was told.
As she got up to leave, he claimed to have shouted “Go home then, I don’t want you here”.
Ms Duggan told the tribunal she was “deskilled” by the company over the next few months, with different aspects of her role being given to other employees.
She raised a complaint about the couple by email, saying: “Daniel and Sarah are both aware that I’m pregnant and as per my risk assessment, my stress should be minimised.
“To deal with this situation in the manner that he did was totally wrong.”
An investigation was launched by the company, and Mr Abbott was issued with a six-month verbal warning for his “harassment”, the tribunal heard.
When reinterviewed about the alleged television in the bedroom comment, Mr Abbott denied saying it, the tribunal heard.
The investigating manager concluded that “over-familiarity between the management team has led to… at least two instances of inappropriate comments being made”.
Ms Duggan resigned on the day her maternity was due to end in April 2023, the tribunal heard.
Jonathan Gidney, the employment judge, ruled she had been subjected to a “campaign of discrimination” by her managers.
He said: “This is not a case of an isolated incident.
“This is a campaign by a married couple, her managers, of discriminatory conduct in relation to her pregnancy.
“Mr Abbott thinks it is fine to shout and use foul and abusive language to female employees, including his own wife.”
Ms Duggan was awarded £16,200 for injury to feelings.