S'pore woman forced to resign due to pregnancy & maternity leave, gets S$19,800 for wrongful dismissal

A pregnant woman in Singapore who was allegedly forced to resign while on maternity leave has won her case, with the magistrate finding it to be a case of wrongful dismissal.

Her boss had suggested that her position be terminated after her pregnancy, explaining that she "did not fit into his vision" for the new team.

This was despite her having received positive feedback for her performance prior to going on maternity leave, according to the September 2026 judgment.

The woman, C, was awarded S$19,800 in compensation by the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT).

This consisted of three months' wages and another three months' pay for harm caused, the maximum award for the ECT's jurisdictional limit.

Told director she was expecting

C joined the company as an executive on Apr. 21, 2021. She was drawing a monthly salary of S$3,300 when her employment ended.

In March 2023, her unit came under a new director, EC.

A month after EC joined the team, she had a one-on-one lunch with EC, during which she told him that she was pregnant with her baby due in October.

During the lunch, she told EC she was considering whether to take a few months of sabbatical leave to care for her newborn.

She did so in accordance with the company's HR handbook, the court heard.

Performance described as 'excellent'

On Jul. 19, 2023, C was commended for her work ethic during her performance appraisal meeting with her immediate supervisor, JY; her new director, EC; and the previous director, JC.

JY described her performance and work ethic as "excellent". EC concurred that her performance was good and she had demonstrated a "strong work ethic".

On Sep. 12, 2023, C submitted her maternity leave form.

She left the date fields left blank, as her child's birthdate was not known.

She also informed HR that she was still thinking about whether to apply for sabbatical leave.

Told that new boss wasn't keen on having her back

On Sep. 13, 2023, the day after submitting the form, C was hospitalised due to pregnancy-related complications.

At the time, C was 36 weeks pregnant and in her final trimester.

She informed HR that she would be going on hospitalisation leave due to complications.

On Sep. 18, 2023, her direct superior, JY, messaged her saying that EC "[wasn't] keen on having [her] back".

JY testified that she had sent the message because she had gotten the impression from EC that C "would be told to go" upon her return from maternity leave.

EC texts her repeatedly asking for a call

On Oct. 2, 2023, C got a WhatsApp message from EC in which he asked for a call "regarding the plans after".

She asked what it would be about as she wished to focus on her pregnancy and not think about her work. He repeated his earlier message.

The next day, EC sent another message saying the "quick chat" would not take longer than 10 minutes.

C eventually agreed.

They spoke the following morning, and the call was recorded by C's husband.

According to C, she was essentially told:

• She did not fit into EC's new vision for his team,
• Her employment would be terminated immediately after her maternity leave,
• She would have to undergo an interview and be re-assessed by EC as to her suitability to rejoin the team if she wished to return to work.

Prior to the call, C had decided not to take sabbatical leave after all, and planned to return to work right after her maternity leave ended.

EC was also already aware of this fact, as it was brought up during the phone call, the court heard.

Asked to go back to office

Subsequently, C was also asked by HR to attend the office for a meeting.

But she declined, stating that she wished to focus on her health and pregnancy at the time.

She also pointed out that she was on hospitalisation leave at the time.

"If [EC] does choose to terminate [me] after [my] leave ends, then [I] would like it in black and white as I would like to start looking for a job as soon as [I am] able to," she added.

HR did not reply.

C remained on hospitalisation leave until Oct. 11, 2023, when she gave birth to her firstborn.

Her maternity leave commenced on the same day and was scheduled to end on Jan. 25, 2024.

A day later, C re-submitted her maternity form with the date fields completed and informed HR by email that she would be commencing her maternity leave.

Resigned

On Dec. 21, 2023, C resigned with one-month's notice.

She subsequently brought a claim to the ECT, seeking compensation for her dismissal, which she alleged was on account of her pregnancy.

In its stated reasons for the dismissal, the company argued that EC had simply been seeking to clarify C's plans after her maternity leave, based on C's earlier expression of interest in taking sabbatical leave.

The company contended that the call was made in good faith, and that EC had merely suggested that "it would be cleaner to terminate the employment after maternity".

But Tribunal Magistrate Lee Li Choon said that as C had not submitted any formal application or indication for sabbatical or no-pay leave, the company had no reason to make the unsolicited phone call through EC.

The magistrate added that the company's "communication effectively conveyed to her that she was not worthy of continued employment simply because she was giving birth and going on maternity leave".

"Degrading and deeply insensitive"

Based on the facts, the magistrate concluded that the company had the intention of terminating C's employment when EC spoke to JY on Sep. 18, 2023, the same day the heads-up text was sent.

Lee said she was satisfied that C showed she did not resign voluntarily, but was compelled to do so by the company's communications through EC.

Regarding the aggravating factors, Lee noted that C was informed of her impending termination "in a manner that was both degrading and deeply insensitive".

"This would have caused her tremendous anxiety about her financial situation and job security during an exceptionally vulnerable period in her life."

The magistrate added that the case sheds light "on the kind of adverse workplace culture that working women who choose to have children may encounter from certain employers".

Under Singapore's Employment Act 1968, a dismissal includes an employee's resignation if the employee can show that the resignation was not voluntary but compelled by the employer's conduct or omission.