Estate agent awarded £47k for unfair dismissal following maternity leave

An estate agent has been awarded more than £47k after she was constructively and unfairly dismissed after returning from maternity leave, a tribunal ruled.

Ms Stewart brought claims of unfair dismissal, direct discrimination, discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy and maternity and/or sex, and victimisation or less favourable treatment.

Stewart worked for Purplebricks Group from March 2022 as a local property agent, and was promoted to the role of estate agent/local property partner in February 2023. She was known as a "strong performer".

In July 2023, Stewart informed her line manager that she was pregnant, though she told him she didn't want anyone who did not need to know to be informed of her pregnancy. Her line manager went against this and informed the team of her pregnancy during a call. Stewart did not want her pregnancy to be made public as she had suffered from miscarriages in the past.

She suffered from severe morning sickness and was hospitalised on many occasions; she was later diagnosed with hyperemesis gravidarum, which Purplebricks were aware of.

Following direction from her GP, Stewart asked for a risk assessment to be carried out but this did not happen for a number of months. When Stewart contacted her line manager to make alternative arrangements when she could not carry out her duties due to sickness, he would not return her calls.

In September 2023, Stewart made a formal grievance about the treatment she received from her line manager. Following a risk assessment in November, she was moved to work in a virtual team, and it was agreed that she would return to her real role when she returned from maternity leave.

Restructuring

Stewart went on maternity leave on 2 March 2024. She was aware that there would be a restructuring in her absence and she wanted to ensure that she was kept up to date and received relevant training prior to her returning to work.

Purplebricks did not contact Stewart during her maternity leave, and a restructuring took place involving a merger with another company. This resulted in changes to how Stewart would be expected to work when she returned.

Stewart used her keeping-in-touch (KIT) days to participate in training which she believed would allow her to understand the changes in her absence. Though the training was general online training about the role of an estate agent, it did not address the changes.

On 2 December 2024, Stewart returned from maternity leave on a full-time basis. She informed her manager that she would likely apply for part-time employment due to childcare issues and personal circumstances.

Stewart returned to work in the virtual team with no discussion or explanation. She did not start work on a part-time basis until January 2025, when she worked 16 hours a week.

Stewart found her work situation stressful and was off sick for a short period. When she returned, she was invited to a meeting which she thought would be to discuss her health, but was instead informed that she was not working to the required standard and her part-time hours were not meeting her role requirements.

At a subsequent meeting, Stewart was asked if she would like to enter into a protected conversation, which she agreed to do. This did not resolve the issues, and Stewart made it clear that she could not afford to lose her job as a single parent.

Stewart raised a grievance on 28 April 2025 as she had discovered that her targets had not been adjusted in light of her hours and she was not given the previously expected level of work.

On 12 May 2025, a grievance meeting took place. The aspects of this grievance were upheld, but Stewart appealed against the outcome. Purplebricks did not take any action to implement the recommendations of the grievance outcome.

An appeal hearing took place on 10 June 2025, in which the reasons were never explained to Stewart, and the outcome of that appeal was not communicated to her until 12 August. Stewart's appeal was upheld, and recommendations were made.

Her line manager refused to discuss the outcome of the grievance with her and did not implement the recommendations.

Stewart's work situation and the conduct she was subjected to had a significant impact on her health. Stewart was prescribed anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medication. She had lost weight and developed vitiligo, which her GP thought may be caused by stress.

Stewart resigned following a meeting on 2 September 2025 when she was informed that, contrary to the outcome of her grievance, her targets would not be reduced. She was asked to sign a return-to-work document stating that she had breached company policy, despite her asking how what she had done amounted to a breach.

Judgment

For Stewart's claim of unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that Purplebricks had "breached the duty of mutual trust and confidence". Employment Judge Jones ruled that Purplebricks "failed to implement the recommendations made in response to both of the claimant's grievances".

Judge Jones added that Purplebricks "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."

The judge ruled that Purplebricks had discriminated against Stewart on the grounds of pregnancy and maternity as it had not kept in touch with her during her maternity leave and it did not provide her with the information and training relating to the new structure of the business that took place. Judge Jones also ruled that Purplebricks had discriminated against Stewart by not allowing her to return to her previous role.

Stewart's claim of direct discrimination was upheld because of maternity leave and/or her sex in that she was subjected to "criticism on her performance which was unreasonable".

The judge added: "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."

Stewart's "dismissal arose from the respondent's discriminatory conduct towards her and is therefore a further act of discrimination in terms of section 39 [of the] 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", the judge ruled.

Her claims of victimisation or less favourable treatment "on the basis of her part-time status were not upheld as there was no evidence given about an equivalent full-time employee."

Stewart was granted a basic award of £1050, compensation for losses arising from discrimination of £27,627 and for injury to feelings she was awarded £18,647.