An employment tribunal in Swansea has found that a sales manager experienced victimisation at work after her boss made derogatory comments about her pregnancy, though her discrimination claim was dismissed on procedural grounds. Jessica Morgan's case against Panelex Wood and its owner Frederick Geraint Hawkes will proceed to a compensation hearing to determine what damages she should receive.
Morgan joined the wood panelling firm in April 2020 in a £40,000-a-year sales role. She announced her pregnancy in July 2023, several months before offering to lead a client presentation. According to the tribunal's written judgment issued in June 2026, Hawkes responded to her offer by saying
nobody wants to see a pregnant woman, Jess.
The tribunal heard that Morgan and Hawkes were the only two full-time office staff members, with Morgan reporting directly to him. This arrangement created what the tribunal described as a significant power imbalance beyond the standard employer-employee dynamic. The tribunal noted that Morgan had been
somewhat reliant on Hawkes and sought his approval.
Hawkes denied making the comment when giving evidence and pointed to inconsistencies in when Morgan said it had occurred. However, the tribunal concluded that he had made the remark. According to additional reporting on the case, Morgan also claimed Hawkes said he
wouldn't be making the mistake of hiring a woman againwhen discussing temporary cover arrangements.
Morgan began maternity leave in January 2024 and left the firm around October that year following a meeting with Hawkes. The tribunal found that both parties had agreed she would not return to work, though Morgan claimed she had felt pressured to reach this agreement.
Why was the discrimination claim dismissed?
Although the tribunal found that Hawkes's comment amounted to unfavourable treatment based on pregnancy, the claim was dismissed because Morgan had taken too long to bring it to the tribunal. The judgment stated that the claim was
dismissed because the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to consider itdue to the time elapsed. Under employment law, pregnancy and maternity discrimination involves unfavourable treatment because someone is pregnant, on maternity leave, or has pregnancy-related illness, and protection applies only if the employer knew or should have known about the pregnancy.
The tribunal noted that Morgan had struggled to provide specific examples of why she felt her pregnancy was treated as an inconvenience, and that her perception had been
largely perceived by the claimant because of her own anxiety. The tribunal also found that Morgan and Hawkes had maintained a
strong working and personal relationshipbefore the pregnancy announcement.
What victimisation claim succeeded?
Morgan's victimisation claim succeeded after the tribunal found she had been sent an
aggressive and threateningletter from Hawkes. This letter reneged on an agreement allowing Morgan to keep a company car until Christmas 2024. The letter was sent after she requested payment in lieu of holiday entitlement she had accrued during her maternity leave.
According to reporting on the tribunal outcome, the victimisation ruling means Morgan has established liability in at least one area of her claim, even though the primary pregnancy discrimination claim was procedurally barred.
What other claims were dismissed?
Morgan's claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and sex discrimination against her employer were all rejected by the tribunal. The tribunal found that the circumstances of her departure, while involving pressure, did not meet the legal threshold for these claims to succeed.
What happens next?
A further hearing will be scheduled to determine the level of compensation Morgan should receive following the victimisation finding. The compensation hearing will establish what damages are appropriate for the victimisation she experienced.
Key Facts
- The tribunal found Frederick Geraint Hawkes made a derogatory comment about Morgan's pregnancy when she offered to present to clients
- Morgan's pregnancy discrimination claim was dismissed as out of time, despite being found well-founded on the merits
- A victimisation claim succeeded after Hawkes sent an aggressive letter reneging on a company car agreement
- Morgan and Hawkes were the only two full-time office staff, creating a significant power imbalance
- A compensation hearing will determine what damages Morgan should receive for the victimisation ruling
