Court finds employee wrongfully dismissed due to pregnancy, awards S$122,000 in damages

SINGAPORE: A district court docket has awarded the dilapidated head of finance of an accounting firm round S$122,000 (US$91,700) in damages, after ruling that her employment became terminated attributable to she became pregnant.

Ms Navinea Kanapathy Pillai became additionally the sole real director at Longitude 101 when she became let jog. The firm attributable to this fact sued her for misappropriating S$100,500 and breaching her employment contract by failing to come some objects.

Ms Pillai then filed a counterclaim in opposition to the firm and its sole shareholder, Swiss nationwide Thomas Haeusler, for wrongful dismissal.

In a written judgment dated Mar 1 and released over the weekend, District Make a choice Samuel Wee rejected Longitude’s direct, pronouncing the firm did no longer say adequate cause for Ms Pillai’s termination.

The come to a name dominated in her favour and pushed aside the allegations of misappropriation, as an replacement finding that the cash withdrawn by Ms Pillai were dividends and shareholder payments paid to Mr Haeusler.

JOINED IN 2019

Longitude is fraction of boutique consulting firm Latitude 1.1 Community, which became feature up by Mr Haeusler in 2012. It supplied accounting services to Latitude’s prospects.

Ms Pillai became in the origin employed by Latitude sometime in 2019, when another man became its sole director.

In September that 365 days, Longitude became incorporated with Ms Pillai named as its sole director. Mr Haeusler became in the abet of this choice.

Mr Haeusler, who grew to turn out to be a Singapore permanent resident in 2009, became disqualified from acting as a director below the Companies Act for 5 years from June 2017. This became attributable to three corporations of which he became a director had been struck off inner the previous 5 years, which routinely triggers the disqualification.

He urged high-web-worth folks, family officers and multinational corporations on putting in place structures to attend investments and property, in step with a Excessive Court judgment.

TERMINATION WITH SALARY IN LIEU OF NOTICE

When the COVID-19 pandemic struck in early 2020, Ms Pillai began working from dwelling. Longitude supplied her with furniture, stationery, computer instruments and paperwork to facilitate this.

Spherical Dec 15, 2020, she urged Mr Haeusler that she became pregnant.

Between Jan 15 and Mar 18 of the following 365 days, she withdrew sums amounting to S$100,500 from Longitude’s checking narrative. Longitude later accused her of misappropriating this.

The firm then issued her a spy of termination on Apr 27, 2021. She became its simplest closing employee at that level.

The dismissal took atomize that identical day, with Longitude offering to pay her three months’ salary — S$43,500 — in lieu of spy as well to a further bonus of S$15,000. These sums hang yet to be paid to Ms Pillai.

With the exception of the reference to the termination with spy clause in Ms Pillai’s employment contract, no reasons got for the termination.

Longitude additionally asked that she return some objects in compliance with a handover clause in her contract. These incorporated what the firm had supplied her for work-from-dwelling purposes.

In the termination letter, the firm further asked that she suggest a time and keep for her to satisfy its manual, who would get hang of the returnable objects and offer her with a cheque for S$58,500. Longitude referred to the truth that she became working from dwelling and “staring at for”.

Longitude then sued Ms Pillai. It sought a return of the objects, damages coming up out of her alleged failure to come them, and rate of S$100,500.

Ms Pillai counterclaimed for damages over her dismissal, asserting that it became attributable to her pregnancy.

NEGATIVE REACTION TO PREGNANCY

In his judgment, District Make a choice Wee rejected Mr Haeusler’s argument that he became no longer acting as a director of Longitude.

The come to a name discovered that he became a de facto director who performed an crammed with life and dominant feature in the firm’s choices, equivalent to signing Ms Pillai’s contract. He became generally known as the “boss” of Longitude.

The come to a name additionally famed Mr Haeusler’s detrimental response when he first discovered out about Ms Pillai’s pregnancy.

In preserving with Ms Pillai’s testimony, Mr Haeusler had urged her it became no longer correct to hang honest a shrimp one in Singapore, and beneficial that she get hang of an abortion. She additionally claimed he made lifestyles hard for her.

All by the trial, Mr Haeusler conceded that Ms Pillai’s termination became no longer attributable to efficiency-associated reasons. District Make a choice Wee did no longer web Mr Haeusler’s argument that stress between Ms Pillai and himself resulted in his choice to fire her.

The come to a name discovered that Longitude and Mr Haeusler did no longer say any reasons that amounted to adequate cause for terminating Ms Pillai’s employment. Of course, they chose no longer to specify the explanations no topic being invited by the court docket to get hang of so.

The come to a name additionally discovered that they conspired by unlawful approach to cause hurt to Ms Pillai.

District Make a choice Wee temporarily addressed Ms Pillai’s argument that her employment became terminated partly attributable to Mr Haeusler’s allegedly harassing behaviour.

The come to a name said he did no longer have to come to a name whether there became sexual harassment enthusiastic, since he had dominated that Ms Pillai became pushed aside thanks to her pregnancy.

Alternatively, the come to a name famed some “inferior and unacceptable” behavior on Mr Haeusler’s fraction. He had despatched two topless selfies to Ms Pillai when he became serving his COVID-19 quarantine in a hotel room, in step with her asking about his swab check outcomes.

When nasty-examined all the draw by the trial, Mr Haeusler well-liked it became no longer accepted for a shareholder to ship such images to a director in “big corporations”, however that such an act became appropriate in the context of a smaller firm admire Longitude.

District Make a choice Wee said he discovered this argument “odd”.

ALLEGATIONS OF MISAPPROPRIATION

Longitude additionally argued that Ms Pillai had withdrawn S$100,500 in cash from Longitude’s financial institution accounts without a foundation and saved the cash. They claimed they simplest discovered this out after terminating her employment.

The come to a name as an replacement discovered that Ms Pillai paid Mr Haeusler S$97,000 in dividends attributable to he became the sole real shareholder, and a further S$3,500 from a shareholder distribution that he requested.

This became supported by ATM transaction data that were acknowledged and signed by Mr Haeusler.

While Longitude and Mr Haeusler sought to dispute the authenticity of these data the day before the trial began, the come to a name pushed aside this. He added they’d taken “inconsistent positions” as to why they objected to the authenticity.

On the origin, they said Mr Haeusler’s signature became solid by ink signing and mandatory to be analysed by the Health Sciences Authority of Singapore, before conceding that the signature belonged to Mr Haeusler however that it perceived to be a “decrease and paste” job. They repeated their initial keep in their submissions on the stop of the trial.

In the case of the objects to be returned to Longitude, District Make a choice Wee discovered that it failed to display it had suffered any quantifiable loss thanks to Ms Pillai’s breach of the handover clause.

Ms Pillai had certainly held onto some returnable objects, equivalent to a pc, cheque books and photocopied paperwork. However the come to a name said that Longitude’s keep on the difficulty of loss became “unclear” and there became an absence of evidence on that front.

District Make a choice Wee additionally discovered that Longitude did no longer display Ms Pillai had breached the confidentiality clause in her contract. The clause did no longer specify what constituted confidential recordsdata, and there became no evidence she had failed to resign this form of recordsdata.

Ms Pillai became awarded S$122,123.93 in damages, plus hobby at a payment of 5.33 per cent per annum from the date of termination to the date of judgment.

This comprised her bonus, salary in lieu of spy, encashment of steadiness jog away, employer’s Central Provident Fund contribution, and eight weeks of maternity relieve as her child is rarely any longer a Singapore citizen.

Ms Pillai became represented by Mr Kishan Pratap and Ms Jasmine Yan from Kishan Law Chambers, while Longitude and Mr Haeusler were represented by Mr Adrian Tan from August Law Corporation.