Ms E Sole (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant transferred to the respondent on 1 September 2020 after earlier service with RNT and VFS. She told the respondent that she was pregnant in November 2020, started maternity leave on 10 March 2021, gave notice of return on 24 January 2022, and was due back in April 2022 but did not return because she went off sick and later resigned on 14 July 2022. At the start of the hearing the claimant withdrew the direct maternity discrimination claim, and the tribunal also recorded that indirect sex discrimination, direct race discrimination and the bonus breach of contract complaint had been withdrawn.

On the maternity-related complaints, the tribunal found that the claimant had only asked to be kept informed about promotional opportunities. It found that no promotional opportunities arose during maternity leave, and that the Deputy General Manager - Special Projects role was not created until after maternity leave had ended and was then offered to her on 16 February 2022. The tribunal accepted that the respondent did not tell her during maternity leave about the closure of the Manchester office, the departure of Ms Valdmane, the redundancy of Ms Sveckiene, or the likely change in line management from Mr Rana to Mr Khot, but found that this was an oversight rather than treatment because she was on maternity leave. It also found that the December 2021 Christmas party invitation policy was driven by Covid-related attendance rules and that there was no March 2022 staff event.

The tribunal rejected the other maternity-leave allegations on their facts. It found that the claimant had been invited to the only Bamboo HR briefing in March 2021 by email to her work address, that there was no custom or policy of birthday gifts, and that the organisational chart was provided without unreasonable delay. It also found that the Special Projects role was at the same grade as the claimant's existing role, with a higher salary and a strategic reporting line, so it was not a demotion. By the time she was due to return, her pre-maternity role had not changed, and when she was told she would not be doing the proposed accounting tasks she confirmed that she would do the same work as before maternity leave. For the remaining s.18(4) and s.47C / reg. 19 complaints, the tribunal held that some allegations were out of time and refused to extend time; where it found the facts were established, it held the reason was oversight or a Covid-based policy, not maternity leave.

The direct sex discrimination claim also failed. The tribunal held that Mr Rana and Mr Khot were not proper comparators because they were more senior and, in Mr Khot's case, had the required quality background and Sigma Six certification. It found that the respondent had appointed them for their seniority and qualifications, and had offered the Special Projects role because it considered the claimant suited to a strategic business-development post, not because of sex. The tribunal also rejected the constructive dismissal claim, holding that the matters proved did not amount to a repudiatory breach or a breach of trust and confidence, and that the grievance process had been dealt with fairly and reasonably.