Saleswoman Wins Maternity Discrimination Claim

An award-winning saleswoman who was not allowed to return to her former role after taking maternity leave, resulting in a significant reduction in her earnings, has succeeded in her maternity discrimination claim before an Employment Tribunal (ET).

Prior to taking maternity leave, the…

Sep 08, 2025

Pexels kpaukshtite 3242264 1024x683

An award-winning saleswoman who was not allowed to return to her former role after taking maternity leave, resulting in a significant reduction in her earnings, has succeeded in her maternity discrimination claim before an Employment Tribunal (ET).

Prior to taking maternity leave, the woman had worked in her employer’s ‘web team’. The web team generated the most income for her employer and the most commission for salespeople. She claimed that her employer had confirmed that she would return to her role in the web team after taking maternity leave. However, a new head of sales had been appointed while she was on maternity leave. She alleged that, at a return to work meeting, the new head of sales had laughed at and dismissed the idea that she would return to the web team. After her return to work, she was allocated to another team.

She brought a claim of maternity discrimination on the basis that she had suffered a significant financial detriment because, prior to taking maternity leave, most of her income had been generated by her sales commission as a member of the web team. Her annual income before taking maternity leave had been around £65,000, compared with about £24,000 after her return.

The ET found that the decision that she would not return to the web team had been made at the return to work meeting, and thus during the protected period of her maternity leave. That decision had directly led to her being treated unfavourably, in terms of the quality of sales leads she was given access to after her return to work, which in turn affected her remuneration. The ET noted that, even if she had not been promised that she would be returning to the web team, she would still have expected to be able to generate similar commission. Returning to a role that led to such a substantial reduction in her income did not, in the ET’s view, represent a return to a similar role.

The ET considered that it was irrational for the woman’s employer not to redeploy her to the web team: she had an impressive track record and her employer had given her awards for her performance in the web team. On the balance of probabilities, the only conceivable reason for the sudden volte-face in her employer’s attitude to her, and the resulting loss of remuneration, was her maternity leave.

The ET found that her employer had discriminated against her, in breach of Section 18(4) of the Equality Act 2010. The amount of damages due to her would be determined at a further hearing, unless agreed.

COVID-19 – Carer Sacked After Visiting Pub Wins Unfair Dismissal Claim

The pressure put on many employment relationships by COVID-19 was illustrated by the case of a care worker who was sacked by her vulnerable charge’s mother after she went to the pub in the very early stages of the pandemic. The carer was one of a team employed by the mother to look after her daughter, who suffers from cerebral palsy and is particularly susceptible to infection. On Friday, 20 March 2020, she went to the pub with her partner and a friend. At almost exactly the same time, the…

A Fair Redundancy Process Requires Consultation at a Formative Stage

A fair redundancy process requires consultation of affected employees at a formative stage when there is at least the potential for them to influence the outcome. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) succinctly made that point in finding that a recruitment consultant in the banking sector was unfairly dismissed. The man’s employer, part of an American-owned group, experienced a downturn in business due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A decision was taken that redundancies were required amongst…

How to Conduct a Fair Redundancy Exercise – Guideline EAT Ruling

A redundancy process in which a decision to dismiss is effectively taken in advance of consulting an affected employee will almost never be fair. The point was made by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in the case of a nurse who was selected for redundancy solely because her fixed-term contract was shortly due to expire. The nurse worked in a research unit that was losing money and needed to shed staff. She was selected for redundancy for no other reason than that her contract was coming up…