A recent employment tribunal has found Bright HR guilty of maternity discrimination and unfair dismissal, awarding more than £50,000 to a former sales consultant. The case is a timely reminder for employers about the legal protections surrounding maternity leave in the UK — and the cost of getting it wrong.

Under the Equality Act 2010, employees returning from maternity leave have the right to return to the same job, or a suitable alternative role on terms and conditions that are no less favourable. This case shows what can happen when those rights are overlooked, and why businesses must take their obligations seriously.

 

Background

Sarah Lindup joined Bright HR as a sales consultant and quickly became a top performer. In her role on the “web team”, she generated over £1.3 million in sales, benefiting from a strong commission structure and a steady stream of valuable leads.

In 2021, Sarah went on maternity leave. Before leaving, she sought assurances about her future with the company. She was told she could return to the same role when her leave ended. For Sarah, this meant not only continuity in her career but also the ability to maintain her income and provide for her family.

 

A Timeline of Events

• 2021 – Sarah begins maternity leave from her role on the web team.
• During leave – She receives confirmation she can return to her original role.
• November 2022 – Sarah returns to work but is assigned to a different sales team.
• Post-return – She discovers the new team has a less favourable commission structure, significantly reducing her earning potential.
• Grievance raised – Sarah challenges the decision, highlighting the impact on her income and the broken promise regarding her role.
• Bright HR’s position – The company claims the change is part of normal business operations and unrelated to maternity leave.

 

What Changed and Why It Mattered

The move off the web team wasn’t just a minor reshuffle. Sarah’s new role had fewer high-quality leads, and the commission structure meant she would struggle to achieve the same earnings as before. While her basic salary remained the same, her overall remuneration potential dropped sharply.

For employees in sales roles, commission is often a significant part of their total pay. The tribunal recognised that reducing commission opportunities can be just as detrimental as cutting base pay.

 

The Tribunal’s Decision

The employment tribunal concluded:

• The change in role was a direct result of Sarah taking maternity leave.
• Bright HR had failed to offer the same or a suitable alternative role on equally favourable terms, breaching Section 18(4) of the Equality Act 2010.
• The company’s explanation of “business change” was not supported by consistent evidence. Other colleagues had remained in their original roles, undermining the employer’s justification.
• Sarah’s grievance was not handled fairly, and the subsequent process amounted to unfair dismissal.

The tribunal stressed that the law is clear: returning parents must be reinstated to the same job or offered a role that is genuinely equivalent in terms of responsibilities, pay, and prospects.

 

Award and Damages

Sarah was awarded more than £50,000, broken down as follows:

• Loss of earnings: Covering the income she would have received had she stayed in her original role, including commission.
• Injury to feelings: Placed in the Vento middle band to reflect the emotional and professional impact of the discrimination.
• Unfair dismissal: Additional compensation for procedural failings.
• Breach of statutory rights: Recognising the failure to uphold her legal entitlements.

 

Why This Maternity Discrimination Case Matters

Cases like this send a clear message to employers: the rights of employees returning from maternity leave are protected by law, and those protections are actively enforced by tribunals.

For businesses, the consequences go beyond financial penalties. The reputational damage, loss of trust among staff, and potential for negative publicity can have lasting effects.

It’s also worth noting that tribunals take a broad view of “terms and conditions”. Even if base pay remains unchanged, a reduction in benefits, bonuses, or commission can still amount to less favourable treatment.

 

Key Learnings for Employers and HR Professionals

This maternity discrimination case UK offers several important lessons:

1. Honour return-to-work commitments: If you promise an employee they will return to the same role, ensure that happens. Verbal assurances count, and breaking them can be costly.
2. Assess changes carefully: If restructuring is genuinely necessary, document the reasons, apply them consistently across the workforce, and communicate clearly.
3. Maintain total remuneration: Consider all elements of pay, not just salary. Cutting commission opportunities can amount to discrimination.
4. Train managers on maternity rights: Many issues arise from a lack of understanding at line manager level. Regular training helps avoid costly mistakes.
5. Handle grievances fairly and transparently: Following the ACAS Code of Practice isn’t optional. Poor grievance handling can tip a case into unfair dismissal territory.
6. Seek HR advice early: Involving a qualified HR professional before making changes can help ensure decisions comply with the law.

 

Final Thoughts

The Bright HR case is a reminder that compliance with maternity rights isn’t just a legal formality — it’s essential for protecting both people and the business. Employers must make sure returning parents are welcomed back into roles that truly match their previous terms, including earning potential.

If you want to be confident your policies and practices meet UK employment law standards, working with an accredited HRi Certified professional is a smart investment. You can find an HRi Certified Consultant who meets our high professional standards in the HRi Directory.

View the full case here.