Beijing, a female HR dismissed a female employee who was 4 months pregnant. After offering her N+1 compensation, the other party signed and left. Unexpectedly, a year later, the female employee suddenly went to arbitration, claiming that the company had coerced her into signing the agreement. She demanded reinstatement and compensation, and an audio recording of the HR saying at the time “It’s better for you and the baby if you leave” became evidence. After the incident, the company had the female HR come forward to take the blame, and this made her feel extremely wronged.

As an experienced HR with years of experience, how could she have expected that she would end up becoming the defendant, while the plaintiff was a pregnant woman she had personally laid off last year?
The matter goes back to last year. At that time, the company adjusted its organizational structure, and there was a pregnant employee on the list who was 4 months along.
The woman followed the rules: she discussed the plan, provided N+1 compensation, and the process went smoothly.
The pregnant employee didn’t make trouble. She signed readily, took the money, and left. The woman still remembered that she had spoken up and advised her a bit more: “Leaving now is best for you and the baby. Go back and rest assured to take care of the pregnancy.”
Little did she expect that her words were recorded by the other side.
Now the situation has completely changed. The female employee holds her prenatal check records and this recording, saying they were “coerced into signing,” and demanding reinstatement of the labor relationship along with compensation.
The arbitration committee’s call went straight to the woman’s mobile phone, asking her to prepare her defense.
What chilled the woman the most was not being named as the defendant, but the company’s attitude.
After it happened, her leader told her to “handle everything with full authority,” but between the lines it meant she was expected to take the blame personally.
The company’s legal department reviewed the case and said that there were flaws in the signature process at the time, and as the executing person, the woman might have to bear liability.
Someone even said, “Laying off a pregnant woman is immoral to begin with. And you said that kind of thing—aren’t you asking to get scolded?”
The woman felt wronged, thinking that she was only an executing person who turned the boss’s decision into black and white. How did she become the target of everyone’s blame?
These days, she has been trying to ask for help everywhere, pleading for lawyers, but the information she got was even worse.
The recording was deadly at the arbitration hearing, and combined with the sensitivity of terminating employment during pregnancy, the company’s chances of losing are extremely high.
Once they lose, to protect themselves, the company will very likely dump all the dirty water onto her, this “specific person in charge of the matter.”
Now, when the woman thinks back to what her master said when she entered the industry—“HR is the company’s shield”—she only finds it ironic.
A shield is indeed tough when blocking blades, but once the blade is too sharp, does the shield become disposable material that can be discarded at any time?
Although the woman feels very wronged, legally speaking, this matter is indeed improper and illegal.
Article 42 of the Labor Contract Law provides: “During the pregnancy period, maternity leave period, and breastfeeding period of female employees, the employing unit may not terminate the labor contract in accordance with the provisions of Articles 40 and 41 of this Law.” The law provides protection for pregnant female employees.
A female employee during her pregnancy period, maternity leave period, and breastfeeding period falls within the “three periods.” Even if the company is willing to pay compensation, if the employee has not committed serious misconduct, the company may not forcibly dismiss her by means of “organizational restructuring” or “incompetence.” The unit has no right to unilaterally terminate the contract.
The woman’s remark “for the good of the child” that she used to persuade the pregnant woman, in fact, ends up substantiating the suspicion that pressure was applied by leveraging the pregnant woman’s status in order to force her to sign.
But having the company make the HR take the blame is useless. As long as the termination took place during the pregnancy period and there is no lawful reason, it is an unlawful termination. Not only may the agreement be revoked, but the company also has to pay back wages and restore the labor relationship. What do you think about this?