(NAIROBI, KENYA) – A former senior manager at KPMG Advisory Services Limited has filed a claim at the Employment and Labour Relations Court, seeking more than Sh45.8 million (approximately $354,000) from the professional services firm. The claimant, a woman identified in court papers as FMI to protect her privacy, accuses the company of pregnancy based discrimination and of creating a hostile work environment that forced her to leave her job while on maternity leave.
FMI joined KPMG in August 2024 as a Major Projects Manager within the firm’s advisory division. She states that she performed her duties well until July 2025, when she told the company she was experiencing a high risk pregnancy. According to the claim, KPMG’s own performance management policy states that employees facing reported health challenges should not be put through performance management processes where the health condition may affect their output. FMI argues that telling the company about her condition should have immediately activated these protections.
She alleges that the firm ignored its own policy and went on to assess her performance during this period. At the end of the 2024/2025 financial year, she was given a performance rating of four, which is described as “partially meets performance expectations”. In her court papers, she says this rating was assigned during a time of known, disclosed high risk pregnancy and in direct defiance of the clear exclusion in the firm’s performance management policy.
The suit also details claims of unequal treatment in how income from a major project was shared out. FMI says she was the lead manager on the G7+ Secretariat engagement linked to the Nairobi Railway City project, a contract she describes as KPMG’s largest infrastructure deal in the region. Despite having main responsibility for the project, she claims she was allocated only 40 percent of the engagement revenue. Meanwhile, a male colleague who held a supporting role received a much larger share. She argues that this decision went against the firm’s own rules requiring rewards to be handed out in a fair and objective manner.
The former manager further claims that she was denied quick access to information about the revenue allocation exercise. This, she says, limited her ability to check or challenge the figures before the deadline. Her court papers describe this not as an administrative mistake but as a structured denial of equal access to employment information that was directly harmful to her professional standing and pay. She argues that the unequal treatment amounted to gender discrimination because her male colleague received both earlier access to information and a larger financial allocation despite holding a junior role on the project.
FMI formally complained to the company on 17 March 2026. She says she did not receive a real response until two weeks later, despite internal rules requiring grievances to be dealt with within two working days. She argues that the delay went against her constitutional right to fair administrative action and that the response she eventually received did not address the substance of her complaints. She describes the reply as inadequate and evasive, saying it continued the unlawful conduct rather than engaging with the substance of the grievance.
In her claim, FMI wants the court to declare that KPMG’s actions amounted to pregnancy based discrimination, gender discrimination, constructive dismissal, denial of equal access to employment information and opportunities, and a violation of constitutional and statutory labour protections. She is also seeking payment for emotional distress, notice pay, accrued leave and other work related dues.
The claimant further alleges that KPMG’s conduct broke not only Kenyan labour laws and constitutional guarantees on equality and freedom from discrimination but also standards that apply to projects funded by the United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). She claims the actions went against principles on human rights, equality and non discrimination contained in the FCDO Supply Partner Code of Conduct.
This story is based on court documents filed by the former employee. The accused parties have not yet filed their responses to the allegations. KPMG has not made a public statement on the matter.