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

HowdenCompetitive, comprehensive, quick

One of the largest independent specialist motor trade brokers in the UK. Our extensive history of supplying insurance to the motor trade means we understand your business needs. By partnering with a specialist insurance broker like us, you get exactly what you need to protect your business.

Nona BowkisHead of Legal Services / SolicitorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

30 Days to Hand the Keys Back: How the Short-Term Right to Reject Really Works

Think a new fault lets buyers walk away, no questions asked? Not quite. Discover why the burden of proof is on the consumer, and how dealers can stay one step ahead.

Don’t Get Caught Out: Why Your Car Warranty Won’t Shield You from the Consumer Rights Act

Think a watertight warranty protects you from refund demands? Think again. We explain how the Consumer Rights Act trumps any small print and what dealers must do to stay safe, or risk costly claims.

Motor Finance Commissions: Supreme Court Slashes £44 Billion Payout, but Are Dealers Really Off the Hook?

The Supreme Court’s August ruling wiped most of the eye-watering £44 billion redress bill off the table, yet thousands of drivers could still pocket compensation when the FCA unveils its new scheme next year. Here’s what the decision really means for lenders, dealers and consumers.

When no title means no sale

Four years after selling a Range Rover, a trader was hit with a demand for a full refund when the vehicle was seized in Spain.

Data Discrepancies: When a clean car becomes a Cat S

Furthermore, the vehicle was clearly not of unsatisfactory quality, having been driven nearly 10,000 miles by the claimant. It also passed an MOT during their ownership.

Don’t Get Caught Out: Your Essential Part Exchange Checklist

Part exchanges can quickly become costly if a trade-in isn’t as described. Learn what to ask and how to protect yourself with our practical checklist.

New Data Order Highlights GDPR Risks with ChatGPT

A US court order now compels OpenAI to indefinitely retain all ChatGPT chats, including those users try to delete. This creates new GDPR compliance challenges for UK dealers using AI tools in their businesses.

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.