A VIDEO editor has won £70,000 in a pregnancy discrimination case after her boss sacked her in a row over “severe” morning sickness.
Mum-to-be Kaila Farmer angered her boss, Harry Pill, after producing a doctor’s note saying she had to work from home because of her nausea and vomiting, a tribunal heard.
Kaila Farmer faced accusations of stealing data before being let go
Mr Pill had previously made comments to other staff about how maternity pay was “unfair”, it was heard.
After Ms Farmer’s announcement, he congratulated her but secretly plotted to fire her over bogus allegations that her performance was not good enough.
He was “clearly unhappy” she could not work in their Oxford office and had to work from home, a tribunal ruled.
Ms Farmer has now successfully sued his company Fresh Cut Video for £73,500 for unfair dismissal and pregnancy discrimination.
Ms Farmer joined Fresh Cut Video in January 2023 as a video editor and operations manager.
She initially worked remotely for the Oxford-based company because she was living in South Africa, but she moved to Reading, Berks, in October 2023 to live with her husband, who had been in the UK since 2020.
They planned to start a family, it was heard.
Now she was based in the UK, Ms Farmer was expected to work in Fresh Cut Video’s office in Oxford.
Talented Ms Farmer received bonuses for her work and at her first probation meeting Mr Pill told her “you are doing great”.
Between January 8 and 16 of 2024, Ms Farmer was working from home as she was sick.
She was due to be in the office to take part in an important call on the afternoon of January 16 but reached out to Mr Pill in the morning to say she would be unable to make it.
When she suggested she could still join the meeting remotely, Mr Pill said: “Hi Kaila, no problem… don’t worry about the meeting.”
In light of her boss telling not to worry about it, she confirmed that she would be too sick to join and he replied: “Sorry to hear you are unwell. Really hope you feel better tomorrow.”
That day, Mr Pill complained to his mother – who managed HR for the company – saying that Ms Farmer “doesn’t care about me at all”.
He texted Mrs Pill: “Time to check about that probation… not noticing/caring an emergency like that call and telling me about it today at 7:20am instead of last night – doesn’t care about me at all.”
The next day, Ms Farmer told Mr Pill that she was “excited” to tell him that she was pregnant but that her doctor had advised her to work from home.
Mr Pill “appeared to receive the news positively” and said it was “fine” to work from home.
She then emailed him saying: “Hey Harry, as per our conversation earlier I just wanted to write this out to you to formalise as per the GP’s instructions.
“I am pregnant and expecting to give birth at the end of July/early August 2024.
“Because of my age and severe nausea and vomiting, the GP has recommended that I keep all stress and commuting low and work from home until my nausea and vomiting subsides (could be six weeks).”
That evening, Mr Pill’s mother sent the company’s HR and employment law firm Peninsula an email which read: “We have consistently made it very clear to KF that the post is office-based with some work on location but managing the commute has been an ongoing challenge for KF.
“In the meeting today, KF advised Harry that she is pregnant and has some additional health challenges that will necessitate her working from home for the time being.”
A week later on January 23 Fresh Cut Video formally instructed Peninsula to advise them for an upcoming performance review of Ms Farmer.
That day, Ms Farmer downloaded work files onto her personal computer which was “usual” and which Mr Pill had known about – but on this occasion he claimed it was a “data breach” and “stealing data”.
Ms Farmer was locked out of the company systems and invited to a probationary review meeting – although the invitation warned: “I must advise you that the possible outcomes following this meeting include termination of your employment.”
She asked to postpone the meeting on health grounds but was denied and the meeting commenced in her absence.
On February 19, pregnant Ms Farmer was dismissed for poor performance and alleged misconduct by way of a termination letter.
In an earlier email to Peninsula, Mr Pill suggested he knew he was going to fire Mr Farmer by saying: “I think it might be a simpler process for everybody if she could just work from home for these last few days whilst she’s with us.”
Ms Farmer sued the company at Reading Employment Tribunal, where Employment Judge Christabel McCooey found that her claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination based on her pregnancy succeeded.
Judge McCooey said based from the messages to HR firm Peninsula, Fresh Cut Video was “clearly unhappy” Ms Farmer would not be in the office.
Judge McCooey said: “Pregnancy is explicitly mentioned in the context of the main concern, which is the post being office-based and of [Ms Farmer] taking sick leave.
“I therefore infer that the concerns about the role being office-based were significantly influenced and exacerbated by the disclosure of the pregnancy and [her] current sick leave related to that pregnancy, which was set to last for at least six weeks.”
Judge McCooey added: “I find Mr Pill tended to downplay his concerns to [Ms Farmer], giving the impression that things were fine with him when, in reality, they were not.
“[Emails Mr Pill sent] suggest the decision to dismiss [Ms Farmer] was predetermined prior to the February 6 2025 and prior to receiving the report from Peninsula. This undermines Mr Pill’s credibility when it comes to looking at the real reason for [Ms Farmer’s] dismissal.
“I therefore conclude that Mr Pill emphasised performance issues as a justification to dismiss the [Ms Farmer], when in reality, her pregnancy and related sick leave was the principal reason for her dismissal.”
The judge continued: “The performance and conduct concerns raised by [Fresh Cut Video] do not singularly or collectively amount to a convincing explanation as to why it dismissed [Ms Farmer] for reasons unconnected to her pregnancy.”
A further claim of failure to deal with a flexible working request was dismissed.
The tribunal found Mr Pill had previously said to another colleague that maternity pay was “unfair”.
Eze Chidiebere Paul
I'm dedicated to creating high-quality content that informs, inspires, and delights. If you have any questions or suggestions, don't hesitate to get in touch. Happy reading!
