An employment tribunal has found in favour of a saleswoman who was denied her previous role after returning from maternity leave. Sarah Lindup, 27, who worked for Manchester-based Bright HR, had been an award-winning employee in the company’s web team sales department prior to taking leave to have her daughter in 2022.
Before her leave, Ms Lindup had earned approximately £65,000 annually and was responsible for generating more than £1 million in sales each year. Upon her return, she was offered a different role with greatly reduced earnings of around £24,000. The tribunal heard that her maternity leave had been “fundamental” to why she had not been reinstated in her original position.
The panel also heard that during a meeting about her return to work, Ms Lindup was laughed at by her new manager when she suggested going back to her old team, a reaction that was described as undermining and inappropriate. The sales manager, Jayde Stott, referred to the conversation as a “mum-to-mum chat”, which the panel found degraded Ms Lindup’s employment status and professionalism.
Loss of earnings and personal impact
The tribunal found that the change in role and the subsequent drop in income had “disastrous personal consequences” for Ms Lindup. The panel was not persuaded that there was a valid reason for the company’s decision to reassign her to a lower-paying position after maternity leave.
Employment Judge Abigail Holt said, “It was irrational for the respondent not to redeploy their award-winning web team member, who only months earlier they had feted, back to the position where she had a track record of bringing in £1.3 million in sales for them in less than a year.”
The tribunal described Stott’s approach as “defensive and potentially insensitive” and rejected Bright HR’s explanation for the change in roles and reduced pay.
“On the balance of probabilities, the only conceivable reason for the sudden volte-face in the respondent’s attitude towards the claimant, and the resulting massive loss of remuneration, was her maternity leave,” Judge Holt said.
The tribunal determined that there was no reasonable justification for the decision not to reinstate her to her original role, despite her previous success and performance, and that her treatment amounted to maternity discrimination. A separate remedy hearing to determine compensation will be scheduled at a later date.
Legal protection and employer responsibilities
Commenting on the decision, Jennifer Leeder, Partner in the Employment and Immigration Team at Birketts LLP, told HRreview, “The Equality Act 2010 protects employees from discrimination because they are pregnant or on maternity leave. An employee returning to work following a period of maternity leave is entitled to return to the same job on the same terms and conditions if they take 26 weeks of maternity leave or less.
“If they are away for longer, they still have the right to return to the same role unless it is not reasonably practicable. In that case, they should then be offered a suitable alternative role with equivalent terms and conditions.”
Ms Leeder noted that employers who do not meet these obligations risk legal action, financial penalties and reputational harm. She added that it is important for managers to be regularly trained on maternity rights and discrimination law and for policies to be well-communicated and clearly followed.
“The key is to foster an inclusive and supportive workplace culture not just to comply with legal obligations but also to drive employee engagement and retention,” she said.
