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.

The 2026 Legal Update: Employment Rights Act 2025 - What Every SME Needs to Know

The Employment Rights Act 2025 represents one of the most significant reforms to UK employment law in recent years. As key provisions come into force throughout 2026, employers should carefully review their existing practices to ensure alignment with the new statutory framework. These legislative changes introduce additional obligations for employers and enhanced protections for employees. For SMEs in particular, the practical and financial implications require early consideration and…

ET Erred in Considering ‘Last Straw’ in Constructive Dismissal

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld an HGV driver’s appeal against the rejection of his constructive unfair dismissal claim, finding that the Employment Tribunal (ET) had misdirected itself on the proper approach to considering the ‘last straw’. The HGV driver’s role involved collecting spent grain from distilleries, taking it to a biogas plant and tipping it into an intake hopper. Following operational changes at the plant, he felt under pressure and found it difficult to take…

Workplace Drugs Policies – ET Fell into Substitution Trap

When considering whether a dismissal is unfair, Employment Tribunals (ETs) must resist the temptation to substitute their own views for those of the employer. That golden rule came under analysis in a case concerning a worker who was dismissed after testing positive for cannabis. The man, a team leader who worked for a recycling company, had been off work for an extended period, suffering from back pain. He self-medicated with cannabis and failed a random drug test after his return to work. He…