**Marks & Spencer Found to Have Unfairly Dismissed Pregnant Worker, Tribunal Rules**
A recent employment tribunal has ruled that Marks & Spencer (M&S) unjustly terminated an employee’s contract due to her pregnancy, highlighting ongoing concerns about workplace treatment of expectant mothers. The tribunal findings shed light not only on the specific circumstances of Nilgun Kayahan Kolan’s dismissal, but also on wider issues of employee rights and discrimination in the workplace.
Ms Kayahan Kolan had only recently embarked on her role in a Watford branch of the well-known high street retailer, being transferred there following the successful completion of her training at M&S’s Uxbridge store in October 2023. Prior to beginning her duties, Ms Kayahan Kolan made it clear to her employer that, owing to a pre-existing back problem, she could not safely lift items heavier than 5kg. She was reportedly initially assured that this limitation would be respected.
However, problems quickly emerged after she relocated to the Watford store. According to evidence presented before the tribunal, Ms Kayahan Kolan found herself regularly tasked with lifting heavy boxes—tasks that exceeded her agreed restrictions and caused her considerable pain. Matters came to a head on 28 October 2023, when she notified her branch manager, Caroline Bowie, about the physical difficulties she was experiencing and disclosed that she was, in fact, pregnant.
In her statement to the tribunal, Ms Kayahan Kolan described the encounter with her manager in emotional terms, expressing her hope for understanding and reasonable adjustment from her employer. Instead, she claims that the atmosphere shifted markedly after she revealed her pregnancy, with Ms Bowie immediately responding, “I’m sorry, we don’t have any suitable jobs for you.” She further stated that Ms Bowie mentioned Ms Kayahan Kolan’s level of English as a barrier to redeployment elsewhere in the store, compounding the sense of exclusion.
Ms Kayahan Kolan described feeling distressed and unsupported, stating that her manager “did not ask a single question about my pregnancy, my health, or whether I needed support.” She went on to say that no effort was made to offer alternative roles or reasonable adjustments that are typically expected under employment law for pregnant workers.
After being told there were “no suitable jobs” available, Ms Kayahan Kolan waited for further guidance but was ultimately instructed to leave her swipe card and locker keys—an interaction she interpreted as clear termination of her employment. Importantly, the tribunal heard that she was not given any formal letter of termination, notice period, or information about the right of appeal, meaning she left her position without paperwork or adequate explanation.
In defence, Ms Bowie told the tribunal that she had congratulated Ms Kayahan Kolan on her pregnancy and explored the prospect of finding another suitable role, although she contended that other available positions either required heavy lifting or a higher level of English fluency, making them unsuitable. She described the conversation as “amicable” and believed Ms Kayahan Kolan could have continued work in the bakery, suggesting communication had broken down between the two parties.
Nonetheless, the tribunal unanimously found in favour of the claimant. After reviewing the context and sequence of events, the judge determined that the words used by Ms Bowie, coupled with the instruction to return company property, amounted unmistakably to a dismissal. In their published decision, the judge wrote, “The tribunal concluded that the dismissal was in fact caused by the disclosure of pregnancy and that that was the reason, or the principal reason, for her dismissal.”
This ruling draws renewed attention to the legal protections enshrined for pregnant workers in the UK. Under the Equality Act 2010, it is unlawful for employers to treat someone less favourably because of pregnancy or maternity. The outcome serves as a reminder to organisations of all sizes to ensure compliance with such regulations, particularly in relation to making reasonable adjustments for staff and engaging in open, supportive conversations regarding their needs.
When contacted, Marks & Spencer declined to add further comment while reviewing the tribunal’s findings, though the case underscores the challenging situations some employees can face when balancing work obligations and pregnancy.
The decision is seen by campaigners as both a victory for Ms Kayahan Kolan and as an important precedent, reinforcing the message that discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy will not be tolerated in UK workplaces. It also highlights the challenges that remain in ensuring fair and equal treatment for all employees.