Hours dropped to zero after telling boss about pregnancy: discrimination upheld
A hospitality worker on a zero-hours contract had her shifts cut from 35 a week to zero within a fortnight of telling her manager she was pregnant. The tribunal awarded over £22,000.
1 min read · Last updated 17 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant had averaged 35 hours per week for the preceding 12 months
- Within two weeks of disclosure her hours fell to zero
- A new starter was hired into shifts that had previously been hers
- The "quiet patch" explanation was not supported by takings data disclosed during proceedings
- There was no documented risk assessment under regulation 16 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
Timeline
-
Pregnancy disclosed
The claimant told the general manager she was 10 weeks pregnant. She mentioned she might need to avoid heavy lifting and late closing shifts on safety grounds.
-
First missed week
The week's rota dropped from the claimant's usual five shifts to two.
-
Zero shifts
She received no shifts for the following week. When she asked, the GM said it was "just a quiet patch."
-
Replacement appears
A newly hired bar staff member started working the claimant's usual evening shifts.
-
Grievance raised
The claimant raised a formal grievance. It was acknowledged but not heard within the company's stated 28-day timescale.
-
Tribunal claim filed
After ACAS early conciliation, the claim was lodged.
-
Tribunal judgment
The tribunal found unlawful pregnancy discrimination under sections 17 and 18 of the Equality Act 2010.
The legal issue
Whether withdrawing shifts from a zero-hours worker after she disclosed her pregnancy amounted to unfavourable treatment "because of" pregnancy, and whether the employer could rebut the inference once the burden of proof shifted.
The outcome
The tribunal held that the claimant had established a prima facie case: a clear change in treatment immediately after the protected disclosure, with a new starter taking over the work. Under section 136 Equality Act 2010 the burden shifted to the employer.
The employer's "quiet patch" explanation was inconsistent with its own till data and the hiring of additional staff. The tribunal drew an adverse inference and found the treatment was because of the pregnancy.
Awards:
- Loss of earnings (past and future, to the start of statutory maternity pay): £9,890
- Injury to feelings (middle Vento band): £12,000
- Interest: £750
Total: £22,640.
The respondent was also ordered to carry out an EHRC-approved equality training programme within six months.
Lessons & takeaways
- Zero-hours and casual workers are protected by the Equality Act 2010 from day one — there's no qualifying service period for discrimination.
- A dramatic change in shift pattern following a protected disclosure is enough to shift the burden of proof onto the employer.
- Vague explanations like "it's quiet" rarely survive disclosure — till data, rotas and new hires speak louder.
- Failing to carry out a pregnancy risk assessment is itself a breach and supports a discrimination finding.
What this case shows about zero-hours work
A common misconception is that zero-hours workers can be dropped without consequence because the employer "doesn't have to" offer shifts. That's true in pure contractual terms, but it's not true in discrimination terms. The Equality Act doesn't care what the contract says — it asks why the treatment changed.
If shifts disappear immediately after a worker discloses pregnancy, raises a grievance, makes a protected disclosure, or asserts a statutory right, the tribunal will look at the timing first and the contractual position second.
The Vento bands explained
Injury to feelings awards in discrimination cases use three bands (called the Vento bands after the case that established them, periodically uprated):
- Lower band (~£1,200–£11,700) — one-off acts, less serious cases
- Middle band (~£11,700–£35,200) — serious cases that don't justify the upper band
- Upper band (~£35,200–£58,700) — the most serious cases, often involving a lengthy campaign of harassment
A pregnancy discrimination case involving loss of all income is typically firmly in the middle band, which is where this award landed.