The UK government has launched a consultation on “Enhanced dismissal protections for pregnant women and new mothers” as part of its wider plan to Make Work Pay. The goal sounds simple: make it unlawful to dismiss pregnant employees and new mothers for at least six months after returning to work — except in specific circumstances.
The consultation opens the door to major changes in how employers manage conduct, capability and redundancy risk for this group.
The consultation has come about as part of the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill. The Bill will grant Ministers a broad regulation-making power to strengthen dismissal protections for pregnant women and new mothers, but it does not define how those protections should work in practice. This consultation is therefore the mechanism for designing the rules that will later be made under that power, including when protections apply, what counts as a lawful dismissal, and how employers must justify their decisions.
Why is this happening now?
On paper, the UK already has very strong maternity protections:
- Dismissal because of pregnancy or maternity is automatically unfair
- Employers must provide suitable alternative roles in redundancy situations
- Capability issues linked to pregnancy cannot be used as grounds for dismissal
Government evidence shows the reality falls short: 11% of mothers still feel forced out of their jobs each year, including dismissal and redundancy, and Tribunal claims significantly under-represent the scale of the problem because only around 1% of affected mothers pursue legal action. Therefore the government has concluded that the law needs to go further, because “unfair treatment persists”.
What is the government actually consulting on?
The consultation is almost entirely focused on defining the “specific circumstances” where dismissal will remain lawful during a protected period covering:
Pregnancy
Maternity leave
Six months after returning to work (possibly 18 months from birth instead — up for debate)
The consultation proposed two distinct options.
Option 1 — Keep all current fair dismissal reasons, but apply a higher legal test
Employers could still dismiss for conduct, capability, redundancy etc. But they would also need to prove something like:
“Continuing the employment would cause serious harm to the business or others.”
The issue is that “serious harm” does not have a widely accepted definition. Nor is the government offering a statutory definition, at least in the consultation.
So, Option 1 = same law, harder to use.
Option 2 — Remove some fair dismissal reasons entirely
The consultation also offers a second option which would narrow or ban:
- Conduct dismissals except for gross misconduct
- Capability dismissals linked to performance or health
- SOSR dismissals
- Most redundancies (unless in serious financial distress or total shutdown)
An example from the consultation is where a pregnant worker repeatedly ignores safety rules causing injury. Under this option, dismissal might be barred because the behaviour isn’t “gross misconduct”. Even racist conduct in front of a customer might not clear the bar.
This creates a risk in lowering workplace standards and exposing employers to discrimination claims from other staff.
What’s the most likely outcome?
Given the consultation’s tone and political commitments, the likely destination is:
A new statutory test for fairness 
Not removing existing dismissal categories
A protection window of 18 months from birth to align with recent redundancy rules
A requirement to offer alternative roles before any dismissal
Day-one coverage for pregnant workers
There is also clear pressure to shift the burden of proof onto employers, i.e. employers must prove the dismissal is not related to pregnancy. That isn’t presented as an official option yet, but it is the only idea raised that would genuinely deal with hidden pregnancy-related motives.
What this will mean in practice for employers
If the Government lands anything close to the proposals on the table, HR teams will have to completely rethink how they manage misconduct, absence, performance, and restructuring decisions involving women who are pregnant or recently returned. Employers will have to assume that any dismissal will be challenged, and they will be expected to justify in detail why retention was impossible, not merely undesirable or commercially inconvenient.
Managers will need significantly stronger evidence when raising issues during pregnancy. “Soft” performance management will be legally hazardous if it transitions into dismissal within the protected period. Redeployment will not be a nice-to-have; it will be mandatory where any suitable alternative role exists. And record-keeping will go from important to essential because employers may well be required to prove that pregnancy played no part whatsoever in the dismissal decision.
From the moment pregnancy is disclosed, the employee steps into an enhanced shield that extends well beyond their return from leave.
This creates a new legal reality: dismissing a pregnant employee will become a high-risk exception to the rule that they must remain employed.
What happens next?
The consultation runs until 15 January 2026. Regulations under the Employment Rights Bill will follow and could be live within the next year or so. Employers have a narrow window to shape how “specific circumstances” are defined because once the rules are in force, compliance won’t be optional.
This is a significant moment for workplace rights and the direction is clear: the government wants a working culture where pregnancy cannot be punished, overtly or covertly.
