Claimant v Mothercare Global Brand Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the dismissal did not end the claimant's maternity leave period and Regulation 20(1)(b) and (3)(b) MAPLE did not apply. The reason for dismissal was not causally connected with pregnancy or taking maternity leave, but rather because the respondent wanted to replace the claimant with Chris Beeley.
The tribunal found there was no genuine redundancy situation and the principal reason for dismissal was that the respondent wanted to replace the claimant with Chris Beeley. This was not a potentially fair reason, therefore the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
The tribunal found unfavourable treatment because the claimant was exercising the right to additional maternity leave. The decision to replace her with Chris Beeley was taken during her maternity leave. Changes to her role, lack of consultation, failure to offer suitable alternative employment, and the sham redundancy were all acts of maternity discrimination under s.18(4) Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal found that by virtue of s.18(7) Equality Act 2010, section 13 (direct sex discrimination) did not apply to the treatment complained of because it was for a reason covered by s.18 (maternity discrimination).
Facts
The claimant was employed as Technical and CSR Manager from April 2016. She went on maternity leave in May 2020. During her maternity leave the respondent's new Chief Product Officer, Karen Tyler, brought in Chris Beeley as a consultant. The claimant's husband, who had been providing maternity cover, had his contract terminated. A departmental restructure occurred during the claimant's maternity leave which involved removing aspects of her role and giving them to others. On returning from maternity leave in June 2021, the claimant was immediately informed her role was at risk of redundancy and a new, more senior Head of Technical role (M3 grade) was created. The claimant believed Chris Beeley was being installed in her job. After consultation, she was dismissed for redundancy on 3 December 2021. Chris Beeley was appointed Head of Technical in February 2022.
Decision
The tribunal found that there was no genuine redundancy situation. The decision to replace the claimant with Chris Beeley was taken during her maternity leave in November/December 2020. The restructure was a sham to make the claimant's role disappear. The claimant was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against because she exercised the right to additional maternity leave. The claims of automatic unfair dismissal and direct sex discrimination were dismissed.
Practical note
Employers must not use restructures as a pretext to remove employees returning from maternity leave, particularly when replacing them with preferred individuals engaged during their absence.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3301207/2022
- Decision date
- 31 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 8
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Technical and CSR Manager
- Service
- 6 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister