SINGAPORE: Can a company sack an employee simply because she is expecting a baby or due to go on maternity leave? Under Singapore law, the short answer is no – yet dozens of women in past years have lodged claims alleging that is exactly what happened.
Last month, an Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) issued a judgment awarding S$19,800 (US$15,520) to a woman who was wrongfully dismissed because of her pregnancy and maternity leave.
The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) received 49 pregnancy-related discrimination complaints between 2019 and 2025, according to a written parliamentary response by Acting Minister for Manpower Jasmin Lau on Oct 7.
A total of 387 pregnancy-related wrongful dismissal claims were filed at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) between April 2019 and 2025, she added.
Of these, 301 were resolved through mediation by TADM, while the remainder were allowed to file claims with the ECT.
Of the 72 who proceeded to file claims at the tribunals, 27 were awarded compensation.
But what counts as wrongful dismissal for a pregnant employee, and is there any way that a pregnant employee can be lawfully dismissed?
CNA spoke to lawyers to find out more.
Referring to the ECT case last month that resulted in a payout, Mr Johnathan Lee Kui Bao, a lawyer at Fong & Fong law firm who was previously a prosecutor with the Ministry of Manpower, noted there were two parts to the case.
The first part relates to whether the woman's own resignation amounted to a dismissal, and the second relates to whether such a dismissal was "without just cause or excuse".
The tribunal found that it was both. In particular, it found that the company's real reason was the woman's impending absence from work, due to her hospitalisation leave and subsequent maternity leave.
As both types of leave are entitlements under Singapore law, dismissing her for exercising these rights was wrongful, said Mr Lee.
A dismissal may be wrongful where the real reason for it is pregnancy, maternity, or an employee's exercise of a maternity-related employment right, said Ms Amarjit Kaur, Withers KhattarWong's head of its Singapore employment team.
The Employment Act prohibits an employer from dismissing a pregnant employee, or issuing her a notice of dismissal, without sufficient cause that is unrelated to pregnancy, said Ms Kaur.
This protection applies to female employees who have served the employer for at least three months, and is triggered upon certification of her pregnancy by a doctor.
Ms Kaur listed some examples of dismissing an employee without sufficient cause:
A pregnant employee can be dismissed for a genuine reason unrelated to the pregnancy, said Mr Mato Kotwani, a partner at PDLegal Singapore.
This can be serious misconduct, poor performance, or a redundancy exercise.
"The important question is whether the employer can show that the stated reason is real, objectively supported and unrelated to the pregnancy or maternity leave," said Mr Kotwani.
Examples of misconduct by pregnant employees that can result in legitimate firing include dishonest conduct such as theft or misappropriation of company assets, said Mr Faraaz Amzar, a director at Eugene Thuraisingam Asia and a former ECT magistrate.
"However, the company must be able to substantiate the allegations with evidence," he said.
If an employer wishes to dismiss a pregnant employee without notice for misconduct, they can do so only after due inquiry, where they set out the allegations against the employee and give her a genuine opportunity to explain herself, said Mr Lee.
The employer should maintain proper documentation and evidence of both the cause for dismissal and the inquiry process, he added.
Mr Kotwani said that the protection is stronger once the employee is actually on maternity leave. The Employment Act specifically restricts employers from giving notice of dismissal during that period.
Even if there is a legitimate reason for termination, separate maternity-benefit obligations may remain, said Ms Kaur.
"MOM states that a pregnant employee who has served her employer for at least three months and is dismissed without sufficient cause or retrenched is still entitled to the applicable maternity benefits," she said.
Ms Kaur said an employee who is pregnant or on maternity leave should first consider whether the dismissal notice was given during her maternity leave itself, or timed to expire during maternity leave.
"This is unlawful outright under Section 81 of the Employment Act and will not require a further 'sufficient cause' analysis," she said.
If the dismissal notice was given at any other point during the pregnancy and the employee has worked for at least three months, the employer will have to show "sufficient cause", said Ms Kaur.
Even if the employer cites redundancy or business reorganisation, a pregnant employee can still challenge the dismissal if it is wrongful.
If the employer is alleging misconduct by the employee, she should make sure the employer has conducted a due inquiry and keep clear, contemporaneous records, said Ms Kaur.
It all boils down to evidence, agreed Mr Lee, advising employees to keep a written record and to save messages, emails and performance appraisals.
After any important conversation, send a short email setting out what was said, he added.
"The employee in this case did exactly that, asking that any decision to terminate her be put 'in black and white'," said Mr Lee.
If an employer suddenly raises performance concerns, removes responsibilities or suggests termination, ask for the reasons in writing, added Mr Kotwani.
"Do not resign in haste: a worker who resigns has to show that the resignation was forced, so get advice before deciding," said Mr Lee.
He added that such workers should seek help early, from the TADM, a union or a lawyer, as wrongful dismissal claims generally have to be filed within one month from the last day of employment.
Ms Kaur said MOM's maternity-dispute guidance also states that a claim concerning wrongful dismissal during pregnancy and unpaid maternity benefits should be filed after dismissal and within two weeks of the child's birth.
Employees should seek prompt advice on which deadline applies to them, said Ms Kaur.
Discrimination is rarely expressed that directly, said Mr Kotwani. He said a tribunal can infer the real reason from the surrounding circumstances.
"The law recognises the concept of 'constructive dismissal'," explained Mr Faraaz.
"This means that where the employer has 'forced' the employee to resign, through its words and conduct, the law will recognise that the employee has been 'constructively' dismissed," he said.
This occurs where the employer's conduct has left the worker with no practical alternative or choice but to resign. The tribunal can then find that an employee has been wrongfully dismissed, even though the employee technically resigned, said Mr Faraaz.
However, not every difficult workplace interaction will amount to constructive dismissal, said Ms Kaur. The employee must establish that the resignation was involuntary and caused by the employer's conduct.
In other words, the employee must have evidence to support her claim.
In this case, the woman had a recording of a call with her boss that was a "crucial piece of evidence", said Mr Lee.
He said it is generally not a criminal offence in Singapore to record a conversation you are part of, and a court can rely on such recordings.
"The risks lie in how a recording is made and used," he said.
A person does not generally need the other side's consent to record a conversation they are part of in a phone call or an ordinary meeting.
However, being open about it is better practice, said Mr Lee.
"If an employer has a clear policy against recording, or expressly asks an employee not to record, doing so anyway, especially secretly, may be treated as disobeying an instruction and can undermine the employee’s credibility," said Mr Lee.
He stressed that recordings should be used only to obtain legal advice or pursue a claim and should not be shared online. If it is, and confidential information is made public, employers may initiate proceedings for damages.
Mr Lee added that employers are held to a different standard under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) - it does not need consent from employees where recording its staff if the recording is reasonable for managing the employment relationship.
However, it must tell them why it is recording, such as through an employment contract, an employee handbook or through HR policies.
Secretly recording staff without such notice risks breaching the PDPA, said Mr Lee.
Employers may also restrict staff from recording meetings, but any such policy should be clear, communicated in advance and applied fairly, he said.
Ms Kaur said an employee recording a conversation with a colleague or manager for their own personal protection generally falls outside the PDPA.
However, if a company's internal policies expressly prohibit covert recording, doing so can expose the employee to disciplinary action, which might then form grounds of misconduct for dismissal, said Ms Kaur.
A contemporaneous written note or follow-up email is often a cleaner way of preserving evidence, Mr Kotwani said.
The Workplace Fairness Act is expected to come into effect in end-2027, said Ms Kaur.
It protects workers against discrimination and prohibits employers from making adverse employment decisions based on protected characteristics like sex, marital status and caregiving responsibilities, she said.
It also includes strict provisions against retaliation for employees who report discriminatory behaviour, said Ms Kaur.
The upcoming Act also lists pregnancy and caregiving responsibilities among its protected characteristics, and will initially apply to employers with 25 or more employees, said Mr Lee.
He said there are clear lessons for employers here, as the court published the judgment last month to "shed light on the kind of adverse workplace culture that working women who choose to have children may encounter from certain employers".
"Beyond legal liability, there are risks to an employer’s reputation and to workforce morale. Decisions on performance or conduct must rest on documented, legitimate grounds unrelated to the pregnancy," he said.
"If an employer has legitimate reasons to dismiss a pregnant employee, it should carry out the process sensitively: hold difficult conversations in person, with HR present, and confirm them in writing," said Mr Lee.
"Above all, managers should be trained, because the company is answerable for what they say and write. Here, a WhatsApp message and a phone call became key evidence against the employer. Employers must level up and prepare for the higher standards expected of them."
Continue reading...
Last month, an Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) issued a judgment awarding S$19,800 (US$15,520) to a woman who was wrongfully dismissed because of her pregnancy and maternity leave.
The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) received 49 pregnancy-related discrimination complaints between 2019 and 2025, according to a written parliamentary response by Acting Minister for Manpower Jasmin Lau on Oct 7.
A total of 387 pregnancy-related wrongful dismissal claims were filed at the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) between April 2019 and 2025, she added.
Of these, 301 were resolved through mediation by TADM, while the remainder were allowed to file claims with the ECT.
Of the 72 who proceeded to file claims at the tribunals, 27 were awarded compensation.
But what counts as wrongful dismissal for a pregnant employee, and is there any way that a pregnant employee can be lawfully dismissed?
CNA spoke to lawyers to find out more.
Why the tribunal ruled in her favour?
Referring to the ECT case last month that resulted in a payout, Mr Johnathan Lee Kui Bao, a lawyer at Fong & Fong law firm who was previously a prosecutor with the Ministry of Manpower, noted there were two parts to the case.
The first part relates to whether the woman's own resignation amounted to a dismissal, and the second relates to whether such a dismissal was "without just cause or excuse".
The tribunal found that it was both. In particular, it found that the company's real reason was the woman's impending absence from work, due to her hospitalisation leave and subsequent maternity leave.
As both types of leave are entitlements under Singapore law, dismissing her for exercising these rights was wrongful, said Mr Lee.
What counts as wrongful dismissal for pregnant women or women on maternity leave?
A dismissal may be wrongful where the real reason for it is pregnancy, maternity, or an employee's exercise of a maternity-related employment right, said Ms Amarjit Kaur, Withers KhattarWong's head of its Singapore employment team.
The Employment Act prohibits an employer from dismissing a pregnant employee, or issuing her a notice of dismissal, without sufficient cause that is unrelated to pregnancy, said Ms Kaur.
This protection applies to female employees who have served the employer for at least three months, and is triggered upon certification of her pregnancy by a doctor.
Ms Kaur listed some examples of dismissing an employee without sufficient cause:
- Because she is pregnant or will be absent on maternity leave
- To avoid paying maternity benefits
- Because she took pregnancy-related hospitalisation leave or medical leave
- Giving a purported reason such as poor performance or redundancy that is not justified by the evidence, or
- Through conduct that effectively compels her to resign
Can a pregnant employee be lawfully dismissed?
A pregnant employee can be dismissed for a genuine reason unrelated to the pregnancy, said Mr Mato Kotwani, a partner at PDLegal Singapore.
This can be serious misconduct, poor performance, or a redundancy exercise.
"The important question is whether the employer can show that the stated reason is real, objectively supported and unrelated to the pregnancy or maternity leave," said Mr Kotwani.
Examples of misconduct by pregnant employees that can result in legitimate firing include dishonest conduct such as theft or misappropriation of company assets, said Mr Faraaz Amzar, a director at Eugene Thuraisingam Asia and a former ECT magistrate.
"However, the company must be able to substantiate the allegations with evidence," he said.
If an employer wishes to dismiss a pregnant employee without notice for misconduct, they can do so only after due inquiry, where they set out the allegations against the employee and give her a genuine opportunity to explain herself, said Mr Lee.
The employer should maintain proper documentation and evidence of both the cause for dismissal and the inquiry process, he added.
Mr Kotwani said that the protection is stronger once the employee is actually on maternity leave. The Employment Act specifically restricts employers from giving notice of dismissal during that period.
Even if there is a legitimate reason for termination, separate maternity-benefit obligations may remain, said Ms Kaur.
"MOM states that a pregnant employee who has served her employer for at least three months and is dismissed without sufficient cause or retrenched is still entitled to the applicable maternity benefits," she said.
How can workers protect themselves?
Ms Kaur said an employee who is pregnant or on maternity leave should first consider whether the dismissal notice was given during her maternity leave itself, or timed to expire during maternity leave.
"This is unlawful outright under Section 81 of the Employment Act and will not require a further 'sufficient cause' analysis," she said.
If the dismissal notice was given at any other point during the pregnancy and the employee has worked for at least three months, the employer will have to show "sufficient cause", said Ms Kaur.
Even if the employer cites redundancy or business reorganisation, a pregnant employee can still challenge the dismissal if it is wrongful.
If the employer is alleging misconduct by the employee, she should make sure the employer has conducted a due inquiry and keep clear, contemporaneous records, said Ms Kaur.
It all boils down to evidence, agreed Mr Lee, advising employees to keep a written record and to save messages, emails and performance appraisals.
After any important conversation, send a short email setting out what was said, he added.
"The employee in this case did exactly that, asking that any decision to terminate her be put 'in black and white'," said Mr Lee.
If an employer suddenly raises performance concerns, removes responsibilities or suggests termination, ask for the reasons in writing, added Mr Kotwani.
"Do not resign in haste: a worker who resigns has to show that the resignation was forced, so get advice before deciding," said Mr Lee.
He added that such workers should seek help early, from the TADM, a union or a lawyer, as wrongful dismissal claims generally have to be filed within one month from the last day of employment.
Ms Kaur said MOM's maternity-dispute guidance also states that a claim concerning wrongful dismissal during pregnancy and unpaid maternity benefits should be filed after dismissal and within two weeks of the child's birth.
Employees should seek prompt advice on which deadline applies to them, said Ms Kaur.
Can it be a wrongful dismissal if the employee is forced to resign?
Discrimination is rarely expressed that directly, said Mr Kotwani. He said a tribunal can infer the real reason from the surrounding circumstances.
"The law recognises the concept of 'constructive dismissal'," explained Mr Faraaz.
"This means that where the employer has 'forced' the employee to resign, through its words and conduct, the law will recognise that the employee has been 'constructively' dismissed," he said.
This occurs where the employer's conduct has left the worker with no practical alternative or choice but to resign. The tribunal can then find that an employee has been wrongfully dismissed, even though the employee technically resigned, said Mr Faraaz.
However, not every difficult workplace interaction will amount to constructive dismissal, said Ms Kaur. The employee must establish that the resignation was involuntary and caused by the employer's conduct.
In other words, the employee must have evidence to support her claim.
Can you secretly record your boss to protect yourself from unfair dismissal?
In this case, the woman had a recording of a call with her boss that was a "crucial piece of evidence", said Mr Lee.
He said it is generally not a criminal offence in Singapore to record a conversation you are part of, and a court can rely on such recordings.
"The risks lie in how a recording is made and used," he said.
A person does not generally need the other side's consent to record a conversation they are part of in a phone call or an ordinary meeting.
However, being open about it is better practice, said Mr Lee.
"If an employer has a clear policy against recording, or expressly asks an employee not to record, doing so anyway, especially secretly, may be treated as disobeying an instruction and can undermine the employee’s credibility," said Mr Lee.
He stressed that recordings should be used only to obtain legal advice or pursue a claim and should not be shared online. If it is, and confidential information is made public, employers may initiate proceedings for damages.
Mr Lee added that employers are held to a different standard under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) - it does not need consent from employees where recording its staff if the recording is reasonable for managing the employment relationship.
However, it must tell them why it is recording, such as through an employment contract, an employee handbook or through HR policies.
Secretly recording staff without such notice risks breaching the PDPA, said Mr Lee.
Employers may also restrict staff from recording meetings, but any such policy should be clear, communicated in advance and applied fairly, he said.
Ms Kaur said an employee recording a conversation with a colleague or manager for their own personal protection generally falls outside the PDPA.
However, if a company's internal policies expressly prohibit covert recording, doing so can expose the employee to disciplinary action, which might then form grounds of misconduct for dismissal, said Ms Kaur.
A contemporaneous written note or follow-up email is often a cleaner way of preserving evidence, Mr Kotwani said.
How will the upcoming Workplace Fairness Act change things?
The Workplace Fairness Act is expected to come into effect in end-2027, said Ms Kaur.
It protects workers against discrimination and prohibits employers from making adverse employment decisions based on protected characteristics like sex, marital status and caregiving responsibilities, she said.
It also includes strict provisions against retaliation for employees who report discriminatory behaviour, said Ms Kaur.
The upcoming Act also lists pregnancy and caregiving responsibilities among its protected characteristics, and will initially apply to employers with 25 or more employees, said Mr Lee.
He said there are clear lessons for employers here, as the court published the judgment last month to "shed light on the kind of adverse workplace culture that working women who choose to have children may encounter from certain employers".
"Beyond legal liability, there are risks to an employer’s reputation and to workforce morale. Decisions on performance or conduct must rest on documented, legitimate grounds unrelated to the pregnancy," he said.
"If an employer has legitimate reasons to dismiss a pregnant employee, it should carry out the process sensitively: hold difficult conversations in person, with HR present, and confirm them in writing," said Mr Lee.
"Above all, managers should be trained, because the company is answerable for what they say and write. Here, a WhatsApp message and a phone call became key evidence against the employer. Employers must level up and prepare for the higher standards expected of them."
Continue reading...