Respondent won Employment Tribunal · 30 March 2023

Fleet sales assistant dismissed during redundancy after maternity leave: tribunal upholds decision

A fleet sales assistant who was made redundant after returning from maternity leave has lost her claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination. The tribunal found the redundancy was genuine and her discrimination claims were out of time.

2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026

Case details

Key facts

  • The claimant was employed as a Fleet Sales Assistant from September 2016 to 31 October 2020.
  • The claimant was on maternity leave from 29 July 2019 and her role was covered by Ms Sheehy.
  • The respondent announced a potential redundancy situation on 1 June 2020 due to office relocation from Luton to Swindon.
  • The claimant was dismissed on grounds of redundancy on 12 June 2020, with an effective date of 31 October 2020.
  • The claimant's discrimination claims were brought out of time and the tribunal declined to extend time.
  • The tribunal found the dismissal was fair and the role was genuinely redundant.

Timeline

  1. Maternity leave begins

    The claimant went on maternity leave and Ms Sheehy was engaged as maternity cover.

  2. Coffee shop meeting

    The claimant and her line manager Ms Cox met informally; discussions about potential redundancy occurred.

  3. Return-to-work meeting

    The claimant made an oral flexible working request; the meeting included Ms Cox and HR manager Ms Jenkins.

  4. Flexible working request refused

    The respondent refused the request, citing home workspace and distractions.

  5. End of maternity leave

    The claimant's maternity leave ended; she was placed on furlough due to the Covid pandemic until 30 June.

  6. Redundancy announcement

    The respondent announced potential redundancies due to office closure and relocation to Swindon.

  7. Dismissal confirmed

    The claimant's dismissal on grounds of redundancy was confirmed, with an effective date of 31 October.

  8. Grievance raised

    The claimant raised a grievance challenging her dismissal, alleging her role still existed.

  9. Effective date of termination

    The claimant's employment ended.

  10. ET1 presented

    The claimant presented her claim to the employment tribunal.

The outcome

The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the respondent genuinely needed to make redundancies due to an office relocation, and that the selection process was reasonable. The discrimination claims were rejected because they were brought out of time and there was no just and equitable reason to extend the deadline.

  • Unfair dismissal claim: failed – redundancy was genuine and process fair.
  • Direct pregnancy/maternity discrimination: out of time and not extended.
  • Direct sex discrimination: out of time and not extended.
  • No compensation awarded.

Lessons & takeaways

  • If you believe you have been discriminated against, you must bring a claim within three months of the act – even if you are on maternity leave, time limits still apply.
  • A genuine redundancy situation can be a fair reason for dismissal, even if you have recently returned from maternity leave.
  • Employers should ensure redundancy consultations are meaningful and consider alternatives, but a quick process can still be fair if the business need is clear.
  • Flexible working requests are not automatically protected in redundancy situations; the key is whether the employer acted reasonably overall.

This case shows how a redundancy process can be fair even when it happens quickly after an employee returns from maternity leave. The claimant, a fleet sales assistant with four years' service, was on maternity leave when her employer announced plans to relocate its office from Luton to Swindon. She returned from leave in April 2020, was furloughed due to Covid-19, and was told in June that her role was redundant. Her employment ended in October 2020.

What the tribunal looked at

The tribunal examined whether the redundancy was genuine and whether the employer acted reasonably. It found that the office relocation was a real business decision, and the claimant's role was one of two that were at risk. The employer consulted with her, considered alternatives, and offered a fair selection process. The tribunal noted that while the process was relatively quick, the employer had a clear business case and did not act unreasonably.

Why the discrimination claims failed

The claimant also argued that her dismissal and other treatment were because of her maternity leave. However, these claims were brought after the three-month time limit. The tribunal decided not to extend time because the claimant had not provided a good reason for the delay – she had been aware of the issues earlier and could have brought claims sooner. This is a reminder that time limits in discrimination cases are strict, even for employees on maternity leave.

What could have been done differently

From the employer's perspective, the case was well-handled: they documented the redundancy rationale, consulted with the claimant, and offered a fair process. For employees, the key lesson is to act quickly if you believe you have been discriminated against. The tribunal also highlighted that a flexible working request does not give automatic protection against redundancy if the role is genuinely redundant.

Why this matters

This case reinforces that redundancy dismissals can be fair even when they follow closely after maternity leave, provided the employer has a genuine business reason and follows a reasonable process. It also underscores the importance of time limits for discrimination claims – employees should seek advice promptly if they think they have been treated unfairly.

Similar cases