A recent employment tribunal judgment has caught the attention of many in the HR and employment law community; not only because of the outcome, but because of who it involved. BrightHR, a Manchester-based provider of employment law and HR software services to other businesses (and part of the Peninsula Group), has been found guilty of maternity discrimination against one of its own employees.
The case of Sarah Lindup v BrightHR offers a stark reminder that even companies that advise others on HR compliance must ensure their own practices reflect the standards they promote. For small businesses and SMEs, it’s an important case to take note of, because it highlights exactly what can go wrong when the basics of maternity protection are overlooked.
What Happened?
Sarah Lindup, a high-performing member of BrightHR’s web sales team, went on maternity leave in 2022. At the time, she had brought in over £1.3 million in sales for the company in less than a year. However, during her leave, changes were made to the structure of the business, and when she sought to return, she faced a dramatically different reality.
The tribunal heard that she was laughed at by her new manager when she expressed a desire to return to her previous team. Instead, she was offered a new role with a significantly reduced salary (around £24,000, down from £65,000). The tribunal found that this treatment was not only unfair but discriminatory, concluding that the only plausible explanation for the change in attitude was her maternity leave.
Employment Judge Abigail Holt described the decision not to reinstate Lindup as “irrational,” particularly given her impressive track record. She stated that “the only conceivable reason for the sudden volte-face… was her maternity leave.”
Why This Case Matters
This judgment reinforces a key legal principle: employees returning from additional maternity leave are entitled to return to the same role or, if not reasonably practicable, a suitable alternative on no less favourable terms. Failing to do so is a clear breach of the Equality Act 2010 and Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations.
But beyond the legal implications, this case really highlights something more fundamental; how a failure in leadership, communication, and planning can lead to serious reputational and financial consequences.
The Irony of Non-Compliance
Perhaps most striking is the irony that this ruling involved a company whose business is to advise others on these very matters. As HR professionals, we often stress the importance of robust policies, clear procedures, and line manager training. This case shows what can happen when these things are not followed internally, even by the so-called experts.
What Should Employers Be Doing?
For SMEs, the lessons are clear and actionable. If you employ someone who is going on maternity leave (or planning to return from maternity leave), here are some practical steps you should be taking:
1. Maintain Clear and Consistent Communication
Agree how and when to stay in touch during maternity leave. This can include optional updates on team news, business developments, or promotional opportunities. But it must be tailored to what the employee wants and documented appropriately.
2. Avoid Detriment at All Costs
Any changes to pay, role, or responsibilities on return from maternity leave must be lawful, reasonable, and clearly explained. Consultation isn’t just good practice – it’s a legal requirement.
3. Plan the Return Early
From ensuring their pass still works to arranging return-to-work meetings and system access, planning ahead shows respect and professionalism, and it builds confidence.
4. Train Line Managers Properly
This case makes it clear that poor treatment doesn’t always stem from ill intent. Often it’s a lack of awareness. Investing in manager training around maternity rights, protected periods, and discrimination risks is a crucial part of risk management.
5. Don’t Forget the Culture
Finally, it’s worth remembering that culture matters. Laughter or dismissive behaviour, even if unintended, can have a lasting impact. Treating someone with dignity, especially during vulnerable life moments, speaks volumes about your business.
Final Thoughts
Lindup v BrightHR serves as a cautionary tale, not just about getting the law wrong, but about the human cost when employers don’t get it right. For those of us supporting businesses, who rely on us to keep them legally compliant, it’s a timely reminder: policies on paper mean little without the right behaviours in practice.
If you’re unsure whether your maternity processes are robust, or if you’d like to ensure your line managers are equipped to handle such situations lawfully and compassionately, get in touch. At Thrive HR Services, I help businesses get these things right – before they find themselves at the wrong end of a tribunal judgment.