Court finds pregnant employee unlawfully dismissed, owed over $122,000
A former head of finance of an accounting service provider has won over $122,000 after a district court in Singapore found that she was unlawfully terminated for being pregnant.
Navinea Kanapathy Pillai was the former head of finance and sole director of Longitude 101 Pte. Ltd., which provides accounting services.
The dispute began after Longitude launched legal proceedings against her in 2021 claiming that she reportedly failed to bring back the Returnable Items as stipulated in her contract.
Longitude also sought payment of $100,500 that Pillai allegedly misappropriated after withdrawing the money from the company's bank account between January 15 and March 18 in 2021.
Pillai, however, filed a counterclaim against Longitude and its sole shareholder Haeusler Thomas claiming that she was terminated in 2021 due to her pregnancy. She also raised Haeusler's harassing conduct as part of the reason for her termination.
Fired for being pregnant
The district court in Singapore sided with Pillai on the case, ruling that she was terminated due to her pregnancy.
"Ms. Pillai was wrongfully dismissed from her employment due to her pregnancy; and there was a conspiracy by unlawful means between Longitude and Mr Haeusler to cause damage to Ms Pillai," said Samuel Wee in his ruling.
According to the court, there was "no other reasonable explanation" for Pillai's termination. It was apparent that she was not terminated for performance-related reasons, but only based on the "Termination with Notice Clause."
The court was also not convinced by Haeusler's claim that there was tension between him and Pillai that led to her termination.
Longitude claimed they faced difficulties working with Pillai, but the company chose not to elaborate on the matter.
"The absence of any elaboration on the alleged difficulties suggests that Longitude considered them insignificant and unimportant insofar as these proceedings were concerned; and also means that there was no evidential basis to show that they constituted sufficient cause," Wee said.
The court also ruled that Haeusler's conduct of sending two topless selfies to Pillai while he was under quarantine was "inappropriate and unacceptable."
"As I have found that Ms Pillai's employment was terminated because of her pregnancy, it is not necessary for me to decide whether there was sexual harassment in this case," Wee said.
Addressing Longitude's claims
On the issues raised by Longitude, the court found that Pillai did not misappropriate the $100,500 that she withdrew between January and March 2021.
The money was paid to Haeusler, with $97,000 paid in dividends due to him being the sole shareholder of Longitude and a further $3,500 as a shareholder distribution requested by Haeusler.
The court rejected Haeusler's denial that received the money, citing inconsistencies in his evidence.
"I therefore find that Longitude has failed to prove that Ms Pillai misappropriated $100,500 from it. The $100,500 she withdrew from Longitude's bank accounts were paid to Mr. Haeusler and have been accounted for," Wee said.
On the Returnable Items, the court found that Pillai did breach the Handover Clause after holding on to the items after her termination from the company.
It ruled, however, that there was "no basis for an award of compensatory damages" after it wasn't satisfied that Longitude incurred losses for Pillai's breach of the Handover Clause.
As a result, Longitude and Haeusler were ordered to jointly pay Pillai $63,623.93, plus interest at the rate of 5.33% per annum from April 27, 2021, to the date of the judgment.
Longitude was further ordered to pay her $58,500, plus interest at the rate of 5.33% per annum from April 27, 2021, to the date of the judgment.
Singapore's Employment Act 1968 seeks to protect women against wrongful dismissal during their pregnancy or maternity leave.
"Unfortunately, instances of wrongful dismissal due to pregnancy remain a reality," Wee said. "Employers may conjure reasons to obscure the true motive for terminating pregnant employees. This is precisely what the Defendant in this case endured.”
