A WOMAN who was told by her boss she would “never be the same again” because she was pregnant could receive up to £200,000 in compensation.

Louise Manning’s manager suggested the high-flier would be “useless” after she told him she was expecting her first child, an employment tribunal has heard.

The panel will decide next month whether Mrs Manning is entitled to the hefty payout following her treatment by Dartford company Safetell.

Nick Medlam, managing director of Safetell, also wrote a memo to Mrs Manning saying “tempted to dismiss and take the consequences – but that would be cut off nose to spite face.”

He also cancelled training she needed to join the firm’s board of directors.

Mrs Manning has successfully sued the company, a leading supplier of security systems to banks and other blue chip firms, and Mr Medlam for sex discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy and maternity leave.

The tribunal panel will meet again in Ashford on Wednesday, February 13, for a three-day hearing to determine the outcome of the case involving the firm based in Dartford's Fawkes Avenue,

Mrs Manning, 39, of Chelmsford, Essex also had written in her appraisal by Mr Medlam; “Louise’s pregnancy has quite naturally had an adverse effect on her ability, motivation and dedication to the tasks of her new role.”

In its judgement, revealed this week, the panel ruled: “Mr Medlam was annoyed and angry when Mrs Manning notified him of her pregnancy.

“Quite clearly, the note was derogatory and discriminatory. It is not often, these days, that the tribunal is faced with such a blatant response to notification of pregnancy.”

Mrs Manning joined Safetell, which has 60 employees and an annual turnover of about £6 million, in August 2004, as its marketing and national accounts manager. In April 2005 she discovered she was pregnant. She extended her maternity leave until October 2006, but at the end of September discovered she was pregnant again. She resigned from her £55,000 a year post in October last year.

In February, the tribunal will also hear a separate claim that Mrs Manning was a victim of constructive dismissal, something the firm denies.

Mr Medlam declined to comment.