Bright HR’s Costly ‘Mum-to-Mum’ Error: £££ Lost After Tribunal Rules Maternity Discrimination

legal updates

Bright HR thought their cloud-based HR know-how would keep them out of trouble, but an Employment Tribunal found they slashed a new mum’s earnings by sidelining her on her return from maternity leave.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

The employee, Ms Sarah Lindup, was a high-performing member of the web team at Bright HR Limited, a role that significantly contributed to her earnings through commission. After taking additional maternity leave, she sought to return to her previous role or a similar position. However, the new Head of Sales, Ms Jayde Stott, decided during a return-to-work meeting that Ms Lindup would not be reinstated to the web team. This decision led to a substantial reduction in her earnings. Ms Lindup raised grievances and appealed the decision, but these processes failed to address her core complaints. The Tribunal found that the decision not to reinstate her to the web team was discriminatory under section 18(4) of the Equality Act 2010.

Legal standards and rules

  • Maternity discrimination (section 18 Equality Act 2010): Employers must not treat employees unfavourably because they are exercising, or have exercised, their right to maternity leave.
  • Right to return to a similar job: Under the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999, employees returning from additional maternity leave are entitled to return to their original job or a similar job on no less favourable terms, including remuneration.
  • Protected earnings: Employers must ensure that policies on protected earnings for employees returning from maternity leave are clear and consistently applied.
  • Grievance and appeal processes: Employers must conduct grievance and appeal procedures in a way that thoroughly addresses the employee’s concerns. Failure to do so can amount to procedural unfairness.
  • Avoiding discrimination in workplace policies: Employees must not be disadvantaged by workplace policies unless such policies are objectively justified.

Tribunal findings

  1. Maternity discrimination
    The Tribunal found that the decision not to reinstate Ms Lindup to the web team was directly linked to her maternity leave. The Head of Sales described the return-to-work meeting as a “mum-to-mum chat”, undermining the professional nature of the discussion. The resulting reduction in Ms Lindup’s earnings amounted to unfavourable treatment under section 18(4).
  2. Right to return to a similar job
    A “similar” job must provide comparable opportunities for earnings. By assigning Ms Lindup to a role with significantly lower earning potential, the employer failed to meet this requirement. The claimant’s award-winning pre-maternity performance was ignored.
  3. Protected earnings
    The issue of protected earnings was initially mishandled, causing unnecessary stress. Although the employer eventually rectified the error, the delay highlighted the need for clear, consistent policies.
  4. Grievance and appeal processes
    The grievance and appeal stages did not address the core complaint about non-reinstatement to the web team, compounding the discrimination.
  5. Workplace policies
    The employer’s assertion that it was within their “gift” to allocate employees to roles conflicted with their duty to ensure decisions are free from bias and based on objective criteria.

Conclusion

DMS NavigatorDealer Management System software for Car Sales, Aftersales and eCommerce

Our dealers use us to help them be more Efficient and Profitable!

You can use our Dealer and Lead Management software to integrate all dealership departments, both online and physical ; providing all in-house functions; Invoicing, Stock Management, Accounting and Marketing as well as interfacing for advertising, ecommerce and more.

Nona BowkisHead of Legal Services / SolicitorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

FCA’s Motor Finance Crackdown: Has the horse already bolted?

The FCA has opened an enforcement investigation into a CMC over motor finance claims, but critics say this should have happened years ago.

Blue Monday 2026: The shocking HSE numbers every employer should see

Feeling the January slump? Fresh HSE data shows stress and anxiety are rising fast and costing millions of working days.

Sold a Car and Now They Want a Refund? The Truth About “No Mental Capacity”

A refund demand lands after the sale, claiming the buyer lacked mental capacity. Here’s how to handle these calls, what actually counts as evidence, and when a contract could be void.

EVs taxed, pay rates up, new leave rights: what changes in 2026?

EV tax kicks in, new bereavement paternity rights arrive, and key pay rates rise. Here’s what to brief your teams and customers on in 2026.

Thinking of swapping five-star favours? The DMCCA could land dealers in hot water

Fake or “mate’s rates” reviews are a banned practice under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.

Stellantis stop/drive fallout: Speculative claims and what dealers should do next

After the Stellantis stop/drive notice, some consumers are trying their luck, even years after purchase. DVSA advice remains to pass and advise, so take legal advice before engaging with threats of court action.

£6,000 ‘Lost Commission’ Demand? The contract wording that cut it to £750

A supplier chased our member for more than £6,000 after an energy contract fell through. Unclear breach wording on “loss of commission” meant the only enforceable sum was the fixed £750.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.