Tribunal releases damning verdict over sacking of pregnant mum by Liz Earle Beauty Co

Helen Larkin, 38, secured a David versus Goliath victory when she won her maternity discrimination and unfair dismissal claim against Liz Earle Beauty Co at Southampton Tribunal Court in January – leaving the company having to fork out over £17,000.

The expectant Southsea mum was dismissed from her digital channel marketing role at the Isle of Wight firm just before her legally protected period of maternity began when she was eight months pregnant in June 2018.

The mum, who had worked for the company for five years, lost her job following ‘restructuring plans’ which Mrs Larkin told the tribunal ‘cast a shadow over’ the birth of her daughter Alice.

But the tribunal panel found in favour of Mrs Larkin, confirming the mum was unfairly dismissed, discriminated against because of her pregnancy and maternity.

It was also found Mrs Larkin would have had a ‘50 per cent chance’ of remaining employed with the company but for the ‘unfairness and unlawful discrimination’.

Central to the discrimination was Mrs Larkin’s new line manager. 'We conclude that Julie Slaymaker had a prejudicial attitude towards the claimant from the point that she knew she was pregnant,’ the published tribunal conclusions wrote.

‘It may well be that this was an unconscious bias but nonetheless we find that as a result the claimant was discriminated against on the grounds of her pregnancy in respect of both of the consideration of the vacancy in respect of (her departing manager); in respect of (a) vacancy in the process of the consultation.’

They added ‘therefore the claimant was unfairly dismissed, it was not a fair dismissal’ and the ‘claimant was discriminated against on grounds of pregnancy and maternity’.

The panel continued: ‘We conclude that if Julie Slaymaker’s in-built prejudice towards (her preferred candidate from a previous workplace) and against the claimant were removed that the claimant had a good prospect of being successful in a fair process, with at a 50 per cent chance of being appointed.’

Mrs Larkin was also overlooked for the role left by her departing line manager but the panel poured scorn on the decision saying ‘given the claimant’s length of service and the skills that she had she would have had a good prospect of being recruited’.

But for the discrimination, Mrs Larkin ‘would have been retained in some capacity within the respondent organisation and therefore would have returned to work after her maternity leave.'

Speaking after the tribunal findings, Mrs Larkin said she was ‘100 per cent behind the findings’ before revealing she still had not received an apology from the company.

Mrs Larkin said: ‘At least I got justice at the end of the day. They will never admit they were wrong, or offer a proper apology - so I shouldn't hope for more.

‘I don't regret refusing their settlement either as I have been able to help a lot of people. Especially other employees from the company who have similar struggles.’

A message from the Editor

Thank you for reading this story on portsmouth.co.uk. While I have your attention, I also have an important request to make of you.

With the coronavirus lockdown having a major impact on many of our advertisers - and consequently the revenue we receive - we are more reliant than ever on you taking out a digital subscription.

Subscribe to portsmouth.co.uk and enjoy unlimited access to local news and information online and on our app. With a digital subscription, you can read more than 5 articles, see fewer ads, enjoy faster load times, and get access to exclusive newsletters and content. Visit our Subscription page now to sign up.

Our journalism costs money and we rely on advertising, print and digital revenues to help to support them. By supporting us, we are able to support you in providing trusted, fact-checked content for this website.