A NURSE is suing her GP brother – claiming he failed to tell her that she had been fired while she was pregnant.
Anika Moughal alleges her brother was ‘objectively ambiguous’ when he tried to inform her she was sacked, an employment tribunal has heard.
Anika Moghul is suing her brother for sacking her while pregnantSolent News & Photo Agency
Dr Mohammed Moughal wanted to ‘soften the blow’ when he fired his sister.
The family doctor suggested his sister ‘stop logging in’ instead of saying she had been ‘dismissed’ or ‘terminated’.
And it turns out Anika didn’t even know she’d been sacked.
She is now taking her brother and his GP practice to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal.
Anika worked for Greenlaw Medical Practice as a practice nurse from September 2020.
Her brother Dr Moughal was one of the partners running Greenlaw.
Greenlaw also has practices in Newton Mearns, East Renfrewshire, and Pollokshields.
Anika previously worked at Greenlaw as a receptionist in 2013, before becoming a health care support worker for the practice between 2014 and 2018 while she studied to be a nurse.
Anika then had a break in summer 2020 to get married.
The preliminary hearing in Glasgow heard that she had come back after the marriage to work as a nurse.
She mostly worked remotely and managed patients with chronic diseases.
Occasionally, she would go into Greenlaw to carry out Covid-19 vaccination clinics or smear clinics.
But in 2023, Anika fell pregnant and had a ‘complicated’ pregnancy.
After the pregnancy, Sandra Grant, the Greenlaw manager, asked her to carry out less in-person clinics.
The decision was then made to sack Anika, though details about why were not revealed.
The tribunal heard: “The partners agreed in writing that Miss Moughal should be ‘off payroll from 1 May 2024’, but what was communicated to Miss Moughal?
“The relevant conversation took place between Miss Moughal and Dr Moughal at the end of April 2024.
“Dr Moughal wished to soften the blow not least because he knew that his sister was pregnant, and I find that he used ambiguous language.
“It was objectively ambiguous, and it also appeared ambiguous to Miss Moughal.
“Dr Moughal advised Miss Moughal to stop working and to stop logging in.
“He did not used the words such as ‘terminated’, ‘dismissed’, ‘fired’ or anything similar.
“He communicated that her work should stop.”
Greenlaw has since dissolved following a dispute between the partners.
The tribunal continued: “Dr Moughal said to Miss Moughal ‘bear with me’ in the context of an ongoing dispute between the partners.
“He accepted in cross-examination that he might not have communicated what he intended to, i.e. that the employment relationship was coming to an end.
“He accepted in cross-examination that Miss Moughal might have been left with the impression that the situation was not, or not yet, permanent.
“Importantly, there was no letter or email confirming the termination of Miss Moughal’s employment in writing.
“She did not at that stage know that the payments of salary would be permanently stopped after April 2024.”
The tribunal found that Anika was sacked on July 31 2024.
Employment Judge Mark Whitcombe said: “There was nothing about the context which made it sufficiently clear that the instruction not to log on or work was permanent, and that Miss Moughal’s contract was therefore at an end.
“The words used were equally consistent with a temporary crisis during a partnership dispute, a dispute which might be resolved.
“I do not think that a reasonable employee in Miss Moughal’s position would have understood Dr Moughal’s words to amount to the communication of a dismissal in all the circumstances.”
Anika received a P45 – the form an employer gives to their employee when they leave a job – by August that year, at which point she knew she had been fired.
However, the judge said ‘there was nothing which clearly and unambiguously communicated to Miss Moughal that the terms of her contract were changing on a permanent basis’.
The judge concluded that Anika was an employee, she was dismissed and the employment tribunal had jurisdiction to hear her claims.
Anika’s case will be considered in full by an employment tribunal at a later date.
Published: [#item_custom_pubDate]
