Her performance review said 'excellent.' Her director had other plans
A worker on maternity leave was told she "did not fit" her new director's vision for the team - then forced out of her job.
Singapore's Employment Claims Tribunal found the worker had been constructively dismissed - pushed to resign by the employer's conduct rather than choosing to leave - on account of her pregnancy and maternity leave. The tribunal awarded her the maximum payout available: $19,800 in compensation.
The decision, published on September 22, 2026, turned on a phone call, a WhatsApp message, and a performance record that contradicted every reason the employer offered for wanting her gone.
The worker joined the company as an executive in April 2021, earning a gross monthly salary of $3,300. In March 2023, a new director took over her business unit. The following month, over a get-to-know-you lunch, she told him she was pregnant with her baby due in October and that she was considering taking sabbatical leave to care for her newborn.
Her annual performance appraisal in July 2023 was strong. Her immediate supervisor described her work ethic as "excellent" and praised her ability to take on projects outside her core role. The new director concurred, noting she had "shown a strong work ethic in the past review period."
Two months later, the tone shifted.
On September 12, 2023, the worker submitted her maternity leave form with the date fields blank - her baby had not yet arrived. She also told the company's HR personnel she was still considering sabbatical leave. The next day, she was hospitalised for pregnancy-related complications at 36 weeks and went on hospitalisation leave until she gave birth on October 11.
Then came the WhatsApp message.
On September 18, 2023, the worker's immediate supervisor sent her a warning: the new director "isn't keen on having u back just a headsup." The supervisor later testified that she sent the message because she had the impression from the director that the worker "would be told to go" upon returning from maternity leave.
Two weeks later, the director messaged the worker directly, asking for "a quick chat" about "the plans after." She responded that she wanted to focus on her pregnancy. He pressed. She agreed to a call the next morning.
Her husband recorded it.
The tribunal found the contents of that October 4 call spoke for themselves. The director told the worker she did not fit into his "new vision" for the team and that his preference was to "terminate after the maternity." He framed it as a kindness - so she could "be fully focused on your family time." If she still wanted to return, she would need to meet new expectations he would set, and only if a spot happened to be available.
The tribunal's finding was direct: the call was not a good-faith inquiry about sabbatical plans. By September 18, the employer had already decided to terminate the worker's employment after her maternity leave. And the director knew before making the call that she intended to come back to work - because in the opening minutes of that same recorded conversation, she told him exactly that.
The following day, HR called the worker and asked her to come into the office for a meeting. She declined, citing her health. In an email, she wrote that if the director chose to terminate her after her leave, she wanted it "in black and white" so she could start looking for work.
HR did not respond.
She gave birth on October 11, 2023. On December 21, still on maternity leave, she resigned with one month's notice.
The tribunal held that the resignation was not voluntary. The worker had been compelled to leave by the employer's communication that her employment would end after maternity leave - making it a constructive dismissal, and a wrongful one.
On the employer's stated reason for wanting her out - that she did not fit the director's vision - the tribunal found nothing to support it. Her performance was good. Her supervisor had rated her higher than the worker rated herself. The director's own assessment was consistent with those scores. The tribunal also noted the worker had not received a salary increment when one fell due in July 2023, unlike other employees, despite her good performance.
The real reason, the tribunal found, was the worker's absence on hospitalisation and maternity leave - both legal entitlements under her employment. Terminating her for exercising those rights amounted to discrimination on the basis of her pregnancy and maternity leave.
On compensation, the tribunal awarded the maximum available: three months' gross salary ($9,900) for loss of income, and three months' gross salary ($9,900) for harm caused - totalling $19,800. The tribunal found the employer had communicated the termination decision under what it described as "the most aggravating of circumstances and at the most inopportune of times" - while the worker was on hospitalisation leave, preparing for labour, and on the threshold of becoming a new mother. The tribunal found no factors in the employer's favour that would reduce the award.
One detail stood out at the hearing: the director who made the call and drove the termination decision did not appear as a witness for the employer.
For HR teams, the case is a sharp reminder of how a new manager's instincts can override a documented performance record - and what it costs when the paper trail runs the other way.
