Maternity leave followed by refusal to return: dismissal for some other substantial reason upheld
An import coordinator who repeatedly stated she could not return to work after maternity and parental leave was fairly dismissed for some other substantial reason. The tribunal rejected her claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #maternity-leave
- #unpaid-parental-leave
- #some-other-substantial-reason
- #small-employer
- #homeworking-request
- #unauthorised-absence
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an import coordinator from 4 March 2019 to 11 February 2022.
- She took two periods of maternity leave and additional unpaid parental leave.
- After exhausting her leave, she repeatedly stated she could not return to work and could not give a return date.
- The respondent dismissed her for some other substantial reason due to her inability to return.
- The claimant did not make a formal homeworking request.
- The respondent had other employees working from home.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started as import coordinator.
-
Pregnancy notified
Claimant informed respondent of pregnancy and requested maternity leave from 15 November 2019.
-
First maternity leave started
Claimant began maternity leave early.
-
Maternity leave extended
Claimant requested and was granted extension to 12 months due to childcare issues.
-
Second pregnancy notified
Claimant informed respondent of second pregnancy and requested continuous maternity leave.
-
Second maternity leave started
Claimant commenced second maternity leave with return date of 10 November 2021.
-
Unpaid parental leave agreed
Respondent agreed to two weeks holiday and four weeks unpaid parental leave, with return date 3 January 2022.
-
Claimant stated she could not return
Claimant told Ben Wallace she could not return on 3 January 2022; general discussion about homeworking but no formal request.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Meeting held regarding unauthorised absence; claimant said she could not return in any capacity until divorce and house sale completed.
-
Dismissal
Managing Director terminated employment for some other substantial reason.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed, whether she was discriminated against on grounds of pregnancy/maternity, and whether she was indirectly discriminated against on grounds of sex.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the reason for dismissal was 'some other substantial reason' – namely, the claimant's inability to return to work after exhausting her leave. The employer had followed a fair process, including a disciplinary hearing, and the claimant had not made a formal homeworking request. The tribunal also rejected the discrimination claims, noting that the claimant's difficulties were not related to pregnancy or maternity but to personal circumstances, and that the requirement to attend work was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you cannot return to work after leave, communicate clearly with your employer and consider making a formal flexible working request if you want to work from home.
- Employers can fairly dismiss for some other substantial reason if an employee is unable to return to work and no reasonable alternative can be agreed.
- Discrimination claims based on pregnancy or maternity require a link between the treatment and the protected characteristic – personal childcare issues after leave may not suffice.
- A small employer may have more leeway in what is considered a reasonable response to an employee's refusal to return.
A clear refusal to return
This case shows what can happen when an employee exhausts all available leave and still cannot return to work. The claimant, an import coordinator with nearly three years' service, took two periods of maternity leave and additional unpaid parental leave. After that, she told her employer she could not return – not even on a part-time or homeworking basis – because of personal issues including a divorce and house sale. She did not give a return date.
The employer, International Forest Products (UK) Limited, held a disciplinary hearing and then dismissed her for 'some other substantial reason'. The tribunal agreed that this was a fair dismissal. The key point was that the claimant had made it clear she could not work at all, and the employer had no obligation to hold her job open indefinitely. The tribunal noted that the claimant had not made a formal homeworking request, even though the employer had other employees working from home.
What the employer did right
The employer followed a fair process: it held a meeting, considered the claimant's situation, and gave her an opportunity to explain. The tribunal found that the decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses for a small employer. The claimant's personal circumstances, while difficult, did not oblige the employer to keep her role open without a return date.
Why the discrimination claims failed
The claimant also argued that she was discriminated against because of pregnancy/maternity and sex. The tribunal rejected these claims. The reason for dismissal was not her pregnancy or maternity leave itself, but her later refusal to return. The indirect sex discrimination claim – based on the requirement to attend work – was also dismissed because the employer could justify that requirement as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and the claimant had not shown that the requirement placed women at a particular disadvantage.
This case is a reminder that while employment protections during maternity leave are strong, they do not extend indefinitely once leave ends. Employees who cannot return should engage with their employer about alternatives, and employers should follow a fair process before dismissing.
Similar cases
Community support worker dismissed after refusing PCR test: absence treated as unauthorised
A Rastafarian community support worker who refused a PCR test due to his religious beliefs was fairly dismissed for prolonged absence, the Watford Employment Tribunal has ruled.
Covert recording led to dismissal: breakdown in working relationships found unfair
A lettings negotiator with seven years' service was unfairly dismissed after a breakdown in working relationships following a covert recording. The tribunal found the procedure flawed and applied a 10% ACAS uplift.
Dismissed by text after a non-molestation order: when a relationship breakdown justifies SOSR dismissal
A secretary dismissed by text message after obtaining a non-molestation order against her boss has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal held that the irretrievable breakdown in the working relationship was a genuine 'some other substantial reason' for dismissal.
Dismissed after visa sponsorship became impossible: Home Office rule change was 'some other substantial reason'
A tribunal has ruled that Fintru Limited fairly dismissed an associate whose skilled worker visa could not be renewed after the Home Office raised salary thresholds. The employer explored alternatives and followed a reasonable process.