A north west firm which dismissed a paralegal months after she announced her third pregnancy did discriminate against her, an employment tribunal has found. But the Manchester tribunal dismissed a claim by Farzana Yasin that she was unfairly dismissed by Bolton-based Swift Lawyers, saying it was likely she would have lost her job anyway.

Following a three-day hearing last month, employment judge Dunlop said the pregnancy ‘played a part’ in the firm’s decision to dismiss Yasin but was not the sole or principal reason. Her compensation, set to be decided by a remedy hearing next month, will be reduced by 35% to take account of the tribunal’s findings.

The tribunal heard that Yasin had been with the claims specialist for three and a half years during which time she had two consecutive maternity leaves. In January 2021, while on furlough, she announced a third pregnancy and was dismissed on notice two months later.

Yasin had been recruited to work on a new stream of work in cavity wall insulation claims. During her absence, a litigation executive was recruited on a salary of £27,000, compared with Yasin’s £18,000, and the two worked together when she returned in November 2020.

On her return, Yasin was asked to review the claim files and expressed concerns about their progress and viability, although the firm’s leaders were positive about them and said her job was not at risk.

However, by March 2021, the firm had decided to close the files and Yasin was told she would be made redundant as a consequence.

Yasin believed the only factor to have changed in the meantime was her pregnancy, but the judge said the firm’s change in position was genuine and the decision to close files made for commercial reasons. There was time given for adequate consultation to take place and Yasin had sufficient warning of her dismissal.

But the judge ruled that the firm did not engage in ‘genuine and meaningful consultation’ and its approach to her unsuccessful appeal was ‘poor, and underlines that [the firm] was merely going through the motions’.

The tribunal found the firm was not open or transparent, and could have done more to explore the possibility of Yasin moving to its conveyancing department.

The judge added: ‘We were satisfied that Miss Yasin’s role was genuinely redundant... However, that does not mean that her pregnancy played no part at all in the decision to dismiss.’ Various factors gave rise to an inference that she would have been treated differently if she was not pregnant, and there was no alternative explanation for these.