Co-director's pregnancy discrimination claim fails as tribunal finds commercial dispute
A tribunal dismissed a co-director's claims of pregnancy and sex discrimination against her business partner, ruling that the breakdown was a commercial dispute over profit-sharing and share valuation, not discrimination.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #pregnancy-discrimination
- #sex-discrimination
- #director-dispute
- #profit-share
- #share-valuation
- #post-natal-depression
Key facts
- The claimant and respondent were equal co-directors and 50% shareholders in a training company.
- The claimant became pregnant in August 2016 and took maternity leave from March to May 2017.
- In November 2016 the respondent proposed a new profit-sharing arrangement, which the claimant agreed to.
- In July 2017 the claimant expressed a desire to leave the business, leading to negotiations for a buyout.
- The parties failed to agree on a share price, and the claimant resigned as director on 30 October 2017.
- The Tribunal found that the respondent's actions were motivated by commercial dispute, not discrimination.
Timeline
-
Company incorporated
Evolving Edge Ltd was incorporated with the claimant and respondent as equal shareholders and directors.
-
Claimant announces pregnancy
The claimant told the respondent she was pregnant. The respondent added 'use contraception in future' to a ways of working document.
-
Profit share renegotiation begins
The respondent proposed a new profit-sharing model due to her bringing in more work. The claimant agreed to a 100% split for the person who brought in the work.
-
Maternity leave starts
The claimant began maternity leave. Her baby was born on 19 March 2017.
-
Return from maternity leave
The claimant returned to work after a short maternity leave.
-
Claimant expresses wish to leave
The claimant told the respondent she was considering leaving the business. The respondent expressed support.
-
Meeting to discuss separation
The parties met and agreed in principle that the respondent would buy the claimant's shares.
-
Claimant values shares at £35,000
The claimant proposed a share price of £35,000, which the respondent rejected as too high.
-
Claimant requests winding up
The claimant's husband requested that the company be wound up immediately.
-
Claimant resigns
The claimant resigned as director of Evolving Edge Ltd.
-
Final judgment
The Tribunal dismissed all discrimination claims, finding they arose from a commercial dispute, not pregnancy or sex.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the respondent's conduct during and after the claimant's pregnancy amounted to direct sex discrimination or pregnancy/maternity discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims of sex discrimination and pregnancy/maternity discrimination.
The key reason was that the evidence showed a commercial dispute between two equal co-directors and shareholders, not discriminatory treatment. The respondent's proposal to change profit-sharing, the negotiation breakdown, and the eventual resignation were all part of a business falling-out.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Not every negative treatment during pregnancy is discrimination—tribunals will look at the genuine reason behind the employer's actions.
- Directors and shareholders in small businesses should ensure that commercial disagreements are documented separately from any pregnancy-related issues.
- If you are a co-director, be aware that disputes over profit-sharing or share valuation are likely to be seen as commercial, not discriminatory.
- Seeking legal advice early can help distinguish between a protected act and a business disagreement.
When a business partnership breaks down
This case shows how a falling-out between two equal business partners can be mistaken for discrimination. The claimant, a co-director and 50% shareholder in a training company, became pregnant in 2016. Shortly after, the other director proposed a new profit-sharing arrangement, which the claimant agreed to. Later, after the claimant returned from a short maternity leave, she expressed a desire to leave the business, leading to negotiations for a buyout. When they could not agree on a share price, she resigned.
The tribunal heard that the respondent had made a comment about using contraception and had not asked about the claimant's post-natal depression. However, the tribunal concluded that these were isolated incidents in the context of a wider commercial dispute. The core of the disagreement was about money and control of the business, not the claimant's pregnancy.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant represented herself and brought a wide range of allegations. The tribunal noted that many of the alleged discriminatory acts were actually part of normal business negotiations. If the claimant had sought legal advice early on, she might have been advised to focus on the few comments that could have been discriminatory, rather than framing the entire commercial breakdown as discrimination.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that employment tribunals will carefully examine the context of any alleged discrimination. For employees who are also directors or shareholders, it is important to separate personal grievances from protected characteristics. The fact that the claimant was a 50% shareholder and equal director made it more likely that the dispute was commercial rather than discriminatory. Anyone considering a similar claim should be prepared to show that the treatment was because of their pregnancy or sex, not because of a business disagreement.
Similar cases
Pregnant physiotherapist forced out: constructive dismissal and discrimination at Barnet FC
A head sports physiotherapist was constructively dismissed after being investigated and having her grievance rejected following her pregnancy disclosure. The tribunal awarded £18,152.48.
Sales Progressor dismissed after PIP following miscarriage: claims fail
A tribunal has rejected claims of unfair dismissal, pregnancy discrimination and sex discrimination brought by a Sales Progressor who was dismissed after a performance improvement plan that began shortly after her miscarriage.
Pregnant employee dismissed without risk assessment: discrimination and unfair dismissal
A tribunal found that VPS PVT Limited unfairly dismissed a pregnant employee and discriminated against her by failing to carry out a health and safety risk assessment. The claimant was awarded £23,823.50 in compensation.
Pregnant office administrator dismissed after employer ignored risk assessment request
A tribunal awarded over £10,000 to two office administrators after finding that one was discriminated against due to pregnancy and the other unfairly dismissed. The employer failed to conduct a pregnancy risk assessment and did not provide written employment particulars.