Claimant v Bright HR Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that on 26.10.22, whilst the claimant was still on maternity leave (within the protected period), the new Head of Sales Jayde Stott made an irrational decision that the claimant would not return to the high-earning 'web team' despite the claimant's award-winning pre-maternity performance. This decision was communicated in what Ms Stott characterised as a 'mum-to-mum chat', undermining the claimant's employment status. The only conceivable reason for the sudden change in attitude towards the claimant, who had generated £1.3 million in sales, was her maternity leave. The decision led to a loss of considerably more than half the claimant's expected income and was intimately connected to her maternity leave.
Facts
The claimant was an award-winning sales operative in the respondent's high-earning 'web team' before taking maternity leave from 08.02.22. Whilst on maternity leave, the respondent recruited a new Head of Sales, Jayde Stott. On 26.10.22, still within the protected maternity period, Ms Stott met the claimant and refused to honour previous agreements that the claimant would return to the web team and receive £1,250 protected earnings. Despite the claimant's pre-maternity award for generating £1.3 million in sales, she was not redeployed to the web team upon return on 15.11.22. The claimant raised grievances which were not upheld. The tribunal found the decision was made in the protected period and was because of the claimant's maternity leave.
Decision
The tribunal unanimously found that the respondent unlawfully discriminated against the claimant under s.18(4) Equality Act 2010. The key decision not to redeploy the claimant to the web team was made on 26.10.22 within the protected maternity period. The tribunal found this decision was irrational given the claimant's excellent pre-maternity performance, and the only conceivable reason for the change in attitude was her maternity leave. The treatment was intimately connected to maternity leave and resulted in a loss of over half the claimant's expected income.
Practical note
A decision made during the protected maternity period that prevents a woman returning to a role with similar earning potential to her pre-maternity position, without rational justification and in circumstances where maternity is the only material change, amounts to unlawful maternity discrimination even if characterised as informal discussion.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2403495/2023
- Decision date
- 10 July 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 10
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Business Software Consultant (BSC) / sales operative
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep