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

InvolutionSTAFF UNIFORM | PROMOTIONAL WEAR | MERCHANDISE | BUSINESS GIFTS

Leading experts in print, promotional clothing, staff uniforms, branded merchandise and PPE. Involution is your brand partner for promotional marketing and workwear, a one-stop-shop for your branded marketing needs for any business size and industry.

Nona BowkisHead of Legal Services / SolicitorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Don’t Get Soaked: The Habitation Checks That Stop Motorhome Rejections

Buyers are rejecting motorhomes for damp, leaks and unsafe cabins. Here’s what to inspect in the habitation area and why a simple pre-sale check can save you a costly Consumer Rights Act dispute.

Can You Claim What You Haven’t Lost? The ‘No Loss’ Principle Meets s19 CRA 2015

A live claim against a member raises a sharp question: if no money has changed hands and only deductions are in dispute, has the claimant suffered a recoverable loss?

To Repair or Not to Repair: that is the question

A customer drops off a car three months after purchase and asks for a refund. You might have a right to repair, but touch a spanner without clear permission and you could turn a winnable case into an unwanted rejection.

Winter Is Coming: Stop Seasonal Complaints Before They Start

Winter faults spark a spike in consumer complaints. A few extra pre-sale checks now can save you a world of hassle when the temperature drops.

Disclosure requirements: when to say no

Clients demanding CCTV, employee records, and the kitchen sink? Here’s a quick guide to when you should hand over documents and when you can hold firm, from pre-action “fishing expeditions” to disclosure once proceedings are issued.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015: Bête noire or useful tool?

Section 19(14) isn’t a magic wand for consumers, and Sections 23 and 24 give traders real leverage. Here’s how to use repairs, disproportionality and usage deductions to keep disputes under control.

Mediation appointments: the court’s take on ‘delays’

You can tell the court you’re unavailable, but will that stop a telephone mediation being listed? In our client’s case it didn’t, and the refusal to move it now means a full hearing next year.

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.