Her Boss Asked ‘What Am I Paying You For?’ When Pregnancy Stopped Her Scooping Ice Cream — Then a Tribunal Awarded Her £38,677

Photo credit: AI-generated image created using ChatGPT. Illustrative only.

Some bosses hear “pregnant” and immediately start acting like a woman’s body is betraying the business plan. They get impatient, start tallying up inconvenience, and say the quiet part out loud. In Chester, a gelato shop worker says that’s exactly what happened to her—right down to a blunt, stinging message from her employer: “what am I paying you for?”

Abbey Gannapureddy worked at Icestone Gelato Café and later brought a case to an employment tribunal. The details were reported in the original post, which says the tribunal ultimately awarded her £38,677.27 after finding she’d been treated unfavourably because of pregnancy. The case involved comments from colleagues, a demotion, and a redundancy process she says shut her out at the worst possible time.

If you’ve ever managed people—or simply worked long enough to see how power gets used—you know how quickly a workplace can turn cold. One minute someone’s trusted, relied on, and promoted. The next minute they’re treated like a problem to be moved along.

From promotion to pressure as pregnancy progressed

Gannapureddy had been an assistant manager at Icestone Gelato Café in Chester, Cheshire, since September 2018, the tribunal heard. She’d been promoted to assistant manager four months after joining, and after a colleague resigned she effectively acted as the “de facto manager.” That’s the kind of responsibility employers love—right up until it costs them something.

In April 2019 she fell pregnant and told company director Faisal Mohammed that her due date was in November. The tribunal heard he agreed to reduce her hours and removed the expectation that she work late or do double shifts. On paper, that sounds like basic decency and common sense: pregnancy changes capacity, and a good employer adjusts duties without making it personal.

But pregnancy doesn’t stay theoretical. As she became more heavily pregnant, the tribunal heard she struggled with tasks involving bending and reaching, like getting cakes for customers and scooping ice cream. She also said at five months pregnant she shouldn’t be lifting heavy tables to mop the floor by herself, and it was agreed her start time would shift so the mopping was done before she arrived.

“What am I paying you for?” and other comments that crossed the line

The tribunal heard that a male colleague made a remark along the lines that if he had a wife in a similar condition he would “not allow her to work.” Gannapureddy complained to Mohammed about that comment. Another colleague, Adil Hussain—described as a nephew of one of the franchise owners—would “pull a face” when he saw her struggling with tasks, according to the hearing.

Mohammed’s response, as described to the tribunal, wasn’t to calmly correct the culture and address the problem. He reportedly reacted angrily, telling her he “could not make any more changes” due to her pregnancy. The tribunal also heard he complained about having to pay someone else to do parts of her job she “can’t or won’t be able to do,” and asked, “what am I paying you for?”

Then came the statement no employer should be careless enough to make: the tribunal heard he told her that if she was unable to do the work needed from her, she would “need to look for another job.” Even if a manager thinks they’re being practical, it lands like a threat—especially when the “unable” part is directly tied to pregnancy.

A demotion, a grievance, and being removed from the WhatsApp group

By September, Mohammed told her she was being demoted to a “regular team member,” with the explanation that business was “quiet” and he could no longer pay additional staff to do tasks she couldn’t do. Gannapureddy raised a grievance, saying there had been a “change in attitude” since the start of her pregnancy and that she was being discriminated against.

The tribunal heard Mohammed’s immediate response was to remove her from the staff WhatsApp group. That might sound minor to someone outside the service industry, but anyone who’s worked those jobs knows the group chat is where shifts, updates, and basic belonging live. Cutting someone out communicates, “You’re not one of us,” without having to say it.

She left on maternity leave in early November 2019 and gave birth to a baby boy at the end of the month, the tribunal heard. In a healthy workplace, that would be a season of covering her, holding her role steady, and letting her return with dignity. The next chapter went another direction.

Redundancy during the pandemic and a process she couldn’t access

In May 2020—after she had gone on maternity leave—Gannapureddy was made redundant as the pandemic forced the shop to operate solely as takeaway and delivery on reduced hours. Many businesses were scrambling then, and redundancies were real. Still, the details matter, especially where the law expects fairness.

The tribunal heard other staff were given the opportunity to discuss why they shouldn’t be made redundant. Gannapureddy, however, was unable to do so within her allotted time slots. The tribunal ruled that she was discriminated against due to pregnancy because she was not offered an alternative role.

This is one of those situations where a manager might tell himself, “It’s not personal, it’s COVID.” But a process can still discriminate if it predictably disadvantages someone on maternity leave and no reasonable steps are taken to include them. Responsibility doesn’t disappear just because the business is under pressure.

No pregnancy risk assessment, despite physical tasks

The tribunal also heard that her job involved “relevant risks,” including “lifting boxes” and “bending and reaching to scoop” ice cream, and that no pregnancy risk assessment was carried out. That omission matters because risk assessments aren’t paperwork for the sake of paperwork. They’re meant to force a manager to slow down, think clearly, and plan duties like an adult.

In a small shop, it’s easy to run on instinct and habit—especially if the owner is constantly plugging gaps on the rota. But pregnancy isn’t a moral failing, and it’s not laziness. It’s a normal part of life, and workplaces that employ women have to be able to handle it without resentment.

Men in charge should hear this plainly: if you can’t manage a pregnant employee without spite, you’re not ready for leadership. You may be ready for a shift, or a till, or making gelato. Leadership requires steadiness under inconvenience, not mood swings and threats.

What the tribunal decided and what she was awarded

Employment Judge Rhodri McDonald ruled that Gannapureddy had been treated unfavourably due to her pregnancy, which led to her demotion, redundancy, and hurtful comments from colleagues. The judge said Adil’s remarks explicitly related to her pregnancy and were acts of pregnancy discrimination, according to the tribunal’s findings reported.

The judge also found Mohammed’s message—saying that if she was unable to do the work needed she would need to look for another job—was an act of pregnancy discrimination. Even though it did not explicitly refer to pregnancy, the tribunal found her pregnancy was an effective cause of the comment, because the reason she was “unable” to do the work was her pregnancy.

Chester Desserts, the company running the franchise, was ordered to pay £38,677.27 in compensation. The tribunal awarded £18,000 of that total for injury to feelings in relation to the pregnancy discrimination and victimisation claims. The report also says claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages connected to her demotion were successful, while claims of disability discrimination due to dyslexia and religious discrimination were dismissed.

The uncomfortable leadership lesson for employers

There’s a way some people talk when they think work is the only thing that matters. They act as if a pregnancy is an employee “choosing” to be difficult, rather than a reality requiring some planning and human decency. That’s how you end up saying something like “what am I paying you for?” to a woman who’s trying to do her job while carrying a child.

Good leadership is simple, but it isn’t easy: you assess risk, adjust duties, and keep your frustration off the employee’s back. You address coworkers who make inappropriate comments, and you don’t punish the person who reported them. If redundancies become necessary, you run a process that includes everyone fairly—especially the person who can’t easily attend a chat because she’s on maternity leave and caring for a newborn.

Work matters. Providing for employees and keeping a business alive matters too. But a boss’s job is to carry weight, not to shove it onto the people beneath him and then act offended when life shows up in their bodies.