Mrs J O’Donnell v HBOS plc — 2026

Mrs J O’Donnell returned from additional maternity leave and accrued annual leave on 9 November 2023. Before that leave she had successfully managed secured recoveries work as a Grade D assistant manager while working 22.5 hours per week. On her return she was refused secured portfolio work, initially given ad hoc tasks and later allocated unsecured recoveries work which the respondent admitted was Grade C work. The Tribunal found that her right to return to her previous job, or if that was not reasonably practicable to a suitable and appropriate alternative, was not respected. It upheld the claims under sections 13 and 18 Equality Act 2010 concerning her exclusion from secured Grade D work.

From 29 January 2024 the respondent operated a provision, criterion or practice excluding Grade D employees who worked four days per week or fewer from secured recoveries portfolio work. In the relevant Non-Complex Recoveries team, five of 15 women and none of nine men were part-time and disadvantaged by the PCP. The Tribunal found that the PCP placed the claimant at a disadvantage by requiring her to perform lower-grade work, affecting her confidence, career and prospects. The respondent produced no evidence that the PCP pursued the legitimate aim pleaded, so it was not shown to be a proportionate means of achieving that aim. The section 19 indirect sex discrimination claim was therefore upheld.

The claimant was dismissed for redundancy on 6 June 2025. The Tribunal accepted redundancy as the reason for dismissal but found that excluding her from Grade D secured work left her without the evidence needed to demonstrate the Grade D competencies used in the selection exercise. The resulting scoring was tainted by discrimination, fell outside the band of reasonable responses and made the dismissal discriminatory and unfair. The allegation that her redundancy score was negatively affected by breastfeeding was not established.

The direct sex and maternity discrimination allegations based on the absence of a formal breastfeeding risk assessment and alleged failure to provide time or allowances for breastfeeding or expressing milk were dismissed. Although no formal risk assessment was completed and the claimant said she felt too busy to express milk regularly, there was no evidence that either alleged failure occurred because of pregnancy or the exercise of maternity-leave rights. The respondent had arranged a private room, purchased a refrigerator and instructed that regular breaks be provided.

The Tribunal assessed past and future financial loss at £28,960 but found that it was fully offset by the net enhanced redundancy payment above the statutory redundancy element, so no award for earnings or benefits was made. It awarded £8,000 for injury to feelings across all discrimination claims and £1,532 interest, producing discrimination compensation of £9,532. No ACAS uplift was made because the claimant's email indicated an intention to lodge a grievance but did not set out its nature in writing. No unfair-dismissal basic award was made because the claimant had received a statutory redundancy payment; the operative judgment awarded £488 for loss of statutory rights. The combined monetary awards were £10,020.