Ms M Stewart v Represented by: Mr S Smith, solicitor Purplebricks Group plc — 2026

The tribunal upheld Ms M Stewart's constructive unfair dismissal claim against Purplebricks Group PLC and found discrimination on grounds of pregnancy and maternity and/or sex. It rejected her victimisation and part-time worker complaints. The respondent submitted no response and did not take part in the proceedings. The tribunal heard evidence from Ms Stewart and her mother and considered the documents produced.

The pregnancy and maternity discrimination findings concerned the respondent's failure to keep in touch during maternity leave, provide information and training about a business restructuring, and allow Ms Stewart to return to her previous role. She returned on 2 December 2024 to the virtual team despite an agreement that she would return to her substantive role. Training accessed through her keeping-in-touch days covered general estate agency matters rather than the changes made during her absence. The respondent did not discuss a return to a field role with her.

After Ms Stewart began working 16 hours a week in January 2025, she faced performance criticism and targets that were not adjusted for her hours or the referrals she received. She was also criticised for not taking evening calls when she had childcare responsibilities. The tribunal found direct discrimination because she had taken maternity leave and/or because of her sex. It found that the treatment was linked to her caring responsibilities and that a man returning from leave in similar circumstances would not have been treated in the same way. The separate part-time worker complaint failed because there was no evidence about an equivalent full-time employee.

The respondent failed to implement recommendations arising from Ms Stewart's grievances. Line management refused to discuss the outcomes and continued the conduct she had complained about. The tribunal found that this breached the duty of mutual trust and confidence and amounted to a fundamental breach of contract entitling her to resign. Her dismissal also arose from discriminatory conduct and was a further act of discrimination under section 39 of the Equality Act.

The tribunal awarded a £1,050 basic award based on her part-time pay at termination. It assessed financial losses on the basis that she would have worked full-time from 6 October 2025, deducted £1,000 earned in other employment, and included pension losses and losses associated with a further period of maternity leave through April 2027. It also allowed £500 for loss of statutory rights and declined to apply an ACAS uplift. The operative order gives financial compensation of £27,626.72 including interest; the reasons give £27,626.73, including £478.93 interest.

For injury to feelings, the tribunal applied the middle Vento band after considering Eddie Stobart Ltd v Graham. It accepted that the treatment affected Ms Stewart's health, her enjoyment of time with her child and her family relationships. She had taken antidepressant and anti-anxiety medication, lost weight and suffered disturbed sleep. The tribunal found that implementing the grievance recommendations would likely have allowed her to remain employed. The reasons assess injury to feelings at £18,000 plus £647 interest, but the operative order states £18,647 plus £647 interest. These inconsistent figures prevent an unambiguous overall award from being recorded.