Pregnant Hairdresser, 19, Was Told to 'Have an Abortion' — Then Sacked 20 Minutes After Asking About Maternity Leave

A 19-year-old hairdressing apprentice has been awarded almost £29,500 after an employment tribunal found she was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against because of her pregnancy and age.

Miss J Hewitt was working as a trainee salon stylist at Elite Hair Lounge's Stockwell branch when she disclosed her pregnancy in December 2023. The tribunal found that her manager, Edna Houshyar, told her she 'should have an abortion as she was too young.'

Weeks later, Hewitt asked what would happen to her apprenticeship after maternity leave. She sent the message at 5:30 p.m. on 18 January 2024 and received an email ending her apprenticeship at 5:49 p.m.

The tribunal described the timing as 'important evidence' when considering whether her pregnancy influenced the dismissal.

Abortion Comment Led to Discrimination Finding

Hewitt began working at the salon on 5 October 2023. On 4 December, Houshyar saw her booking a private ultrasound appointment on her phone and spoke to her privately.

Hewitt said her manager advised her to have an abortion because she was too young to be pregnant. The tribunal accepted her account on the balance of probabilities.

The panel found the comment amounted to pregnancy discrimination and age discrimination. Two other age discrimination complaints were not upheld.

Pregnancy Appointments Came Under Scrutiny

The tribunal also examined Hewitt's treatment after her pregnancy became known. On 22 December, she was marked as late despite attending a medical appointment. The tribunal found this amounted to pregnancy discrimination. It also found that lateness that had not occurred was recorded against her.

The panel accepted that Hewitt had been late on three occasions in December but found that she had not taken any unapproved days off. By January, the tribunal found that the salon had not put measures in place to support her pregnancy, despite her trainee stylist role involving periods of standing.

Dismissal Followed Maternity Leave Query

On 16 January 2024, Hewitt said pregnancy-related migraines prevented her from attending work. She had a doctor's note and was signed off from 15 to 18 January. Houshyar responded: 'I don't think with this situation that you have, and all these days that you are asking for a day off, you can continue. I understand your situation; if you want to work you have to be more responsible and try harder.'

On 18 January, Hewitt asked what would happen to her role after maternity leave and whether she could resume her apprenticeship after having her child. Nineteen minutes later, she received notice that her apprenticeship had ended because 'milestones integral to the apprenticeship programme were not met,' without those milestones being specified.

Tribunal Rejected Performance Claims

After Hewitt challenged the decision and raised the abortion comment, the salon cited lateness, absences, and customer service. The owner said the decision followed 'careful consideration of various factors,' while a later email referred to 'persistent lateness', poor customer service, and 'multiple unapproved days off.'

However, the tribunal found there had been no verbal or written warning about Hewitt's alleged performance problems and no contemporaneous evidence supporting the claims. It also found that she had not taken unapproved days off. The panel concluded that Hewitt's pregnancy was the 'reason, or principal reason', for her dismissal.

Hewitt Awarded £29,489.62

The tribunal upheld Hewitt's claim of automatic unfair dismissal, along with several direct pregnancy discrimination complaints and one direct age discrimination complaint. A separate remedy judgment ordered Elite Hair Lounge Limited to pay £29,489.62.

The award included compensation for automatic unfair dismissal and injury to feelings, with a 20 per cent uplift applied to the relevant awards, as well as interest. The case was heard by the London South Employment Tribunal. Hewitt had also raised a formal grievance in April 2024, while the tribunal heard that the salon's HR consultancy had advised there was no need to respond because she was no longer an employee.