Sham redundancy after maternity leave: £1.28 million award for sex discrimination and unfair dismissal
A political risk underwriter was unfairly dismissed in a sham redundancy after returning from maternity leave. The tribunal awarded £1,287,014 for sex discrimination, harassment, and unfair dismissal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Band E Political Risk Underwriter from 14 June 2017.
- On 8 February 2019, Mr Llewelyn shouted 'shut up' at the claimant during a team call.
- The claimant announced her pregnancy on 29 April 2019.
- The claimant was placed at risk of redundancy on 9 October 2020 and dismissed on grounds of redundancy.
- The tribunal found that the redundancy reason was not genuine and was a sham.
- The tribunal awarded a total of £1,287,014 in remedy.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant started as Political Risk Underwriter at Swiss Re.
-
Sexist comment
Mr Llewelyn made a sexual comment about the claimant's breasts and sexual positions at a work drinks event.
-
Derogatory comment
Mr Llewelyn referred to a female colleague as 'reckloose'.
-
Awayday feedback dismissed
Mr Llewelyn sharply dismissed the claimant's feedback during a team offsite.
-
Shut up incident
Mr Llewelyn shouted 'shut up' at the claimant during a conference call.
-
Verbal attack meeting
Mr Llewelyn criticised the claimant's personality, telling her to be more submissive and show vulnerability.
-
Pregnancy announced
Claimant informed the respondent she was 14 weeks pregnant.
-
Maternity leave started
Claimant commenced maternity leave.
-
Return from maternity leave
Claimant returned to work part-time.
-
At risk of redundancy
Claimant was told she was at risk of redundancy.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed and whether she was subjected to sex discrimination, pregnancy/maternity discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld claims of direct sex discrimination, maternity-related discrimination, sex-related harassment, and unfair dismissal. It rejected claims of equal pay and victimisation.
The key reasons were:
- The manager's conduct, including shouting 'shut up' at the claimant, making sexist comments, and telling her to be more submissive, amounted to harassment and discrimination.
- The redundancy was a sham; the real reason for dismissal was the claimant's sex and pregnancy/maternity.
The compensation award of £1,287,014 included:
- Basic award: £1,392
- Compensatory award: £1,285,622 (including injury to feelings, loss of earnings, and pension loss)
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are subjected to sexist or harassing behaviour at work, keep a detailed record of incidents and raise a grievance promptly.
- A redundancy process that is a sham to cover up discrimination will be closely scrutinised by tribunals, especially if it follows maternity leave.
- Employers should ensure that any redundancy selection is genuinely based on business needs and not influenced by protected characteristics like sex or pregnancy.
- Managers should be trained on appropriate workplace conduct; comments about appearance or demands to be 'more submissive' are clear red flags.
- The ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures applies; failure to follow it can lead to an uplift in compensation.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights how a seemingly legitimate redundancy process can be exposed as a sham when the surrounding conduct points to discrimination. The claimant, a Band E Political Risk Underwriter with three years' service, returned from maternity leave to find herself placed at risk of redundancy. The tribunal found that the real reason for her dismissal was not redundancy but her sex and pregnancy, following a pattern of harassment by her manager.
The manager had made sexist comments, shouted at her during a conference call, and told her to take a 'more submissive role'. When she announced her pregnancy, internal emails showed managers exploring options to manage her out, including a performance improvement plan, despite no prior performance issues.
What the losing side could have done differently
Swiss Re could have avoided this outcome by taking the claimant's grievance seriously and addressing the manager's behaviour. Instead, the tribunal found that the redundancy was a pretext. A genuine redundancy process would have involved fair selection criteria, consultation, and consideration of alternative roles. The employer's failure to follow a fair process, combined with the discriminatory motive, led to the substantial award.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that tribunals will look beyond the stated reason for dismissal to examine the context. The award of over £1.28 million reflects not only financial losses but also injury to feelings, and it includes an uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code. For employees returning from maternity leave, this case reinforces that they are protected from discrimination and that any redundancy process during or after maternity leave will be carefully scrutinised.
Similar cases
Dismissed without notice and discriminated against: a double blow for a former employee
A former employee was unfairly dismissed, wrongfully dismissed without notice, and discriminated against on grounds of sex. The tribunal awarded £16,208.68, including an uplift for the employer's failure to follow the ACAS code.
Tutor unfairly dismissed after employer mistakenly accepted resignation
A tutor with three years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer wrongly believed she had resigned. The tribunal awarded £1,499.54 for breach of contract and unlawful deduction of wages.
Redundancy without process: food sales assistant awarded £12,651 after unfair dismissal
A food sales assistant dismissed by a butchers that went into liquidation has won £12,651 for unfair dismissal, redundancy and wrongful dismissal after the tribunal found the employer failed to follow proper procedures.
Deputy Design Director loses redundancy and discrimination claims against Greenland UK
A deputy design director who brought claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and unlawful deduction from wages after being made redundant has lost all her claims at the London Central Employment Tribunal.