Mrs E Parry v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Heard in Leeds — 2025

Mrs Parry left the Department of Health and Social Care on a voluntary exit under the Civil Service Compensation Scheme. She challenged the calculation of her exit payment, arguing that periods of unpaid compulsory, ordinary and additional maternity leave from her three maternity leave periods should have counted towards reckonable service. The dispute affected the quotations she received during the process, including figures of £61,627.28 and £58,784.20, and she ultimately received £62,782.46 after later adjustments for keeping in touch days.

The tribunal held that the Civil Service Compensation Scheme is an occupational pension scheme within section 212(1) of the Equality Act 2010 and section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993. On that basis, section 75 of the Equality Act 2010, rather than section 39(2), governed the complaint. The tribunal therefore approached the case through the Maternity Equality Rule and the statutory definition of reckonable service in the scheme rules.

It found that the scheme defines 'service' more broadly than 'reckonable service', and that rule 12.1.4(2)(a) excludes any period of unpaid leave from reckonable service. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that unpaid leave is treated the same way for compensation purposes, whether the unpaid leave is maternity-related or for another reason. It also accepted that the employer guidance states that current reckonable service excludes unpaid maternity leave.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's argument that unpaid maternity leave should be treated as paid leave because of the maternity policy wording and the reference to maternity allowance or statutory maternity pay. It held that the Equality Act protection for maternity in this context applies to paid maternity absence, including statutory maternity pay, but does not require credit for unpaid leave. It also rejected the suggestion that the respondent should have exercised a discretion in her favour within the group voluntary exit scheme.

On the sex discrimination aspect, the tribunal held that the treatment complained of was the application of a neutral rule excluding unpaid leave, not treatment because of sex. It described the issue as a criterion case rather than a motivation case and relied on the reasoning in cases including Geldart, Shamoon, JFS and Interserve. It also found that the first two-week compulsory maternity leave period in the claimant's first maternity leave was subsumed within the overall maternity leave period on the facts. The complaint was therefore dismissed in full, and no remedy hearing was required.