Ms M Stewart v Purplebricks Group plc: 8001924/2025

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No 8001924/2025
Between
Ms M StewartClaimantPurplebricks Group PLCRespondent
Before
Employment Judge A JonesMr S Smith, solicitor for claimantDate 28 May 2026

JUDGMENT

[1]The claimant was constructively and unfairly dismissed by the respondent.[2]The claimant was discriminated against by the respondent on grounds of pregnancy and maternity and/or sex.[3]The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant a basic award of £1050, compensation for losses arising from discrimination of £27,626.72 (including interest) and compensation for injury to feelings of £18,647 plus interest of £647.[4]The claimant was not subjected to less favourable treatment because she was a part time worker.

REASONS

[1]The claimant lodged a claim on 7 August 2025. No response was received to the claim. The respondent has not sought to take part in the proceedings. A preliminary hearing took place on 10 November 2025. By that time the claimant had resigned and sought to amend her claim to include a claim of unfair dismissal. That amendment was accepted.[2]A final hearing was listed. The claimant gave evidence as did her mother. A bundle of documents was produced. Having listened to the evidence and taken into account the documents to which reference was made the following facts were established. Findings in fact[3]The claimant commenced work with the respondent on 28 March 2022 as a local property agent.[4]The claimant was promoted around February 2023 to the role of Estate Agent/Local Property Partner. Between March 2023 and March 2024, her pay which included commission related bonus and a car allowance was an average of £643.42 gross and £509.10 net.[5]The claimant was a strong performer and was informed that she was performing well in her role by her line managers.[6]The claimant informed her line manager that she was pregnant in July 2024. She informed him that she did not want anyone who did not need to know of her pregnancy for work purposes to be informed. The claimant’s line manager against that instruction informed the team on a team call of the claimant’s pregnancy. The claimant had good reason for not wishing her pregnancy to be made public, having experienced miscarriages in the recent past.[7]The claimant suffered from severe morning sickness and was hospitalised on several occasions. She was diagnosed with hyperemesis gravidarum. The respondent was aware of her condition. The claimant asked for a risk assessment to be carried out following direction from her GP. No assessment was carried out for a number of months.[8]The claimant had difficulty contacting her line manager to make alternative arrangements when she was unable to carry out her duties due to sickness. He would not return her calls. The claimant lodged a formal grievance around 26 September 2023 complaining of how she had been treated by her line manager. She had sought to resolve matters informally without success.[9]The claimant was moved to work in a virtual team following a risk assessment around November 2023. It was agreed that she would return to her substantive role on return form maternity leave.[10]The claimant went on maternity leave on 2 March 2024. She was aware that there was to be a restructuring in her absence and wanted to ensure that she was kept up to date and received relevant training prior to her return to work.[11]The respondent did not contact the claimant during her maternity leave. A restructuring took place involving a merger with another company. This resulted in fundamental changes to how the claimant would be expected to operate on her return to work.[12]The claimant used her KIT days to take part in training which she had understood would allow her to understand the changes in her absence. This was after she contacted the respondent to make further enquiries about training. In the event, the training she was given access to was general online training about the role of an estate agent and the legislative context and did not address the changes which had taken place in her absence.[13]The claimant returned from maternity leave on 2 December 2024 on a full-time basis. She informed her manager that she would likely apply for part-time working due to childcare issues and her personal circumstances. The claimant returned to work in the virtual team without discussion or explanation to her.[14]The claimant started working part-time on the basis of 16 hours a week from January 2025.[15]She was finding her work situation increasingly stressful and was off sick for a short period. When she returned to work, she was invited to a meeting which she thought would be to discuss her health but instead was informed that she was not performing to the required standard and that working part-time was not meeting the requirements of her role.[16]At a subsequent meeting the claimant was asked if she wished to enter into a protected conversation, which she agreed to do. That did not resolve the issues. The claimant made clear she couldn’t afford to lose her job as she was a single parent.[17]The claimant discovered that her targets were not adjusted in light of her hours and she was not given the level of work previously expected. She raised a further grievance on 28 April 2025.[18]A grievance meeting took place on 12 May 2025. Aspects of that grievance were upheld but the claimant appealed against the outcome. No action was taken by the respondent to implement the recommendations of the grievance outcome.[19]An appeal hearing took place on 10 June 2025. For reasons which were never coherently explained to the claimant, the outcome of that appeal was not communicated to her until 12 August. The claimant’s appeal was upheld in large part and partially upheld in the remainder. Recommendations were made.[20]The claimant’s line manager refused to discuss the outcome to the claimant’s grievance with her and did not implement the recommendations.[21]The work situation and the conduct to which the claimant was subjected had a significant impact on the claimant’s health. She was prescribed anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medication. She lost weight. Her sleep was affected (beyond what might normally be expected of a mum with a young child). She developed vitiligo which her GP thought may be caused by the stress she was suffering. The claimant’s mother, who works for the NHS, became extremely worried about the claimant and in particular her weight loss. She was also aware that the claimant had become withdrawn and noticed a marked change in her behaviour and had to take on additional responsibilities in helping with the claimant’s child.[22]The claimant resigned following a meeting on 2 September 2025 when she was informed that, contrary to the outcome of her grievance, regardless of the number of leads she was provided with from the respondent her targets would not be reduced. In addition, the claimant had been asked to sign a return-to-work document acknowledging she had breached company policy despite asking in what way what she had done amounted to a breach. In the claimant’s resignation letter, she referred to the preliminary hearing which was listed in the current case for 10 November 2025.[23]The claimant had intended to work part-time for a period of around 6 months on her return from maternity leave until she could afford to pay for full-time childcare at which point she would return to full-time hours.[24]The claimant obtained alternative work following her resignation from the respondent, but had to resign from that employment because she had been unable to secure a child-care place for the full time hours working due to issues with Universal Credit.[25]The claimant has had to return to live with her parents with her young son and sell her home. She has been unable to secure alternative work due to childcare difficulties and is now pregnant again and due to give birth on 14 August 2026.[26]The claimant was entitled to enhanced maternity pay when employed of 90% for the first 6 weeks, then 50% salary and SMP and car allowance for 16 weeks, followed by SMP.[27]The claimant lodged a schedule of loss. Discussion and decision[28]In terms of the claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal, the Tribunal was satisfied that the respondent had acted in breach of the claimant’s contract of employment in that it breached the duty of mutual trust and confidence. In particular, it failed to implement the recommendations made in response to both of the claimant’s grievances. There appeared to be a disconnect between her line management and those dealing with the grievances. The line management refused to enter into discussions with the claimant regarding the outcome of the grievances and continued to subject her to the conduct she had complained of in those grievances. That is a fundamental breach of contract, and the claimant was entitled to resign in response.[29]The respondent discriminated against the claimant on grounds of pregnancy and maternity by failing to keep in touch with her during her maternity leave and failing to provide her with information and training in relation to the new structure of the business which was implemented during her maternity leave. In addition, it discriminated against her failing to allow her to return to her previous role on her return from maternity leave and failing to discuss with her a return to a field rather than virtual role.[30]The respondent directly discriminated against the claimant because she had been on maternity leave and/or her sex in that she was subjected to criticism on her performance which was unreasonable and required to meet targets which were not adjusted to reflect her part time hours or the level of referrals made to her by the respondent. The reason for this treatment was because of the claimant’s caring responsibilities, that no efforts were made to discuss the arrangements for her return to work on a similar basis as she had been working previously and a man in similar circumstances (who had returned from a period of leave) would not have been treated in the same manner. The treatment was wholly unreasonable and was designed to push the claimant out of her role as the respondent did not want a woman with childcare responsibilities working in her role. The claimant was criticised for not taking calls in the evenings, when she had childcare responsibilities.[31]The claimant’s dismissal arose from the respondent’s discriminatory conduct towards her and is therefore a further act of discrimination in terms of section 39 Equality Act. The breaches of contract about which the claimant complained in her grievance were acts of discrimination either on the basis of pregnancy and maternity or sex and the claimant was entitled to resign in response to those breaches.[32]The Tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had been subjected to victimisation or that she was treated less favourably on the basis of her part-time status as there was no evidence given about an equivalent full-time employee.

Remedy

[33]The claimant is entitled to a basic award of £1,050 which is based on her pay at the time of termination of her employment which the Tribunal has calculated as a gross figure of £350 (on the basis of a full time equivalent of £643.42). She was working part-time at the time of the termination of her employment and said that she intended to return to full-time hours within around 6 months which would have been June 2024. The claimant did spend a period working full-time in November 2025 and therefore her losses are calculated on the basis that she would have worked full time from 6 October 2025 being the date of termination of her employment.[34]The claimant’s losses to the date of hearing taking into account the £1,000 of income in mitigation is 32 weeks @ £509 per week plus weekly pension loss of £15.27 (being 3%). There is a total weekly loss of £524.27 x 32 weeks = £16,776.64 less mitigation is £15,776.64. Losses to the date on which the claimant would have been likely to have gone on maternity leave say 10 July is 8 weeks at £524.27 £4,218.16.[35]If the claimant went on maternity leave on 10 July, she would have been entitled to 6 weeks’ pay at £458, which is £2,749 followed by 16 weeks’ pay at £449 which is £7,184 followed by SMP for 17 weeks of £194 which is £3,298. The claimant will be entitled to statutory maternity pay of 39 weeks @ £194.32, giving a total loss of £6,653 to a likely return to work in April 2027. The claimant is also entitled to a basic award and an award in respect of statutory rights. Losses to date of hearing £15,776.64 Losses to second maternity leave £4,218.16 Losses to April 2027 £6,653.00 Total £26,647.80 Interest 478.93 Loss of statutory rights 500.00 Total compensation £27,626.73[36]The Tribunal did not consider it appropriate to apply an ACAS uplift as while the respondent did not implement the relevant recommendations of the grievance, the Tribunal is not satisfied that it would be appropriate to apply the uplift in the present circumstances.[37]Interest is calculated on the compensation awarded to the claimant for loss of earnings from the mid-point of the date of the act of discrimination. For these purposes the date of the act of discrimination is taken to be 2 December 2024 being the claimant’s return to work from maternity leave. This is because it is not possible to establish a specific date by which the respondent ought to have contacted the claimant. The calculation of interest is therefore from mid-point of 164 days (that is between 2 December 2025 and the calculation date of 15 May 2026). Interest is therefore due on the basis of 164/2 x 0.08 x 1/365 x £26,647.80 = £478.[38]In terms of injury to feelings, the Tribunal took into account the recent guidance of the EAT in Eddie Stobart Ltd v Graham 2025 EAT 14 and came to the view that an award in the middle band of Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No2) 2003 ICR 318 would be appropriate. The Tribunal took into account the evidence of the claimant and her mother and accepted that the claimant’s health was significantly affected by the conduct of the respondent, had an impact on her ability to enjoy her time with her young child, her relationship with him and her parents. The Tribunal noted that the claimant had been taking anti-depressant and anti-anxiety medication, but could not do so now as she was pregnant. The claimant said that he had been informed that if she continued to take that medication she would have to wean her baby off the medication when he or she was born and she did not wish to have to do that so was having regular meetings with her midwife to discuss how she was coping. The Tribunal also noted that the respondent consistently refused to implement reasonable recommendations which would have alleviated the stress caused to the claimant and that had it done so, the claimant would likely have remained in their employment. The Tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence that she loved her role and wanted to stay in it. In all these circumstances, and award of £18,000 is appropriate. Interest is calculated from the date of the claimant’s return to work until the calculation day, which is £647.