Introduction
This essay examines the employment rights of Kate, a senior administrator at Greentel Ltd, a major telecoms company, in the context of her maternity leave and subsequent return to work. Since joining the company in 2015, Kate has been a valued employee, recently receiving an exceptional rating in her last appraisal. However, following her maternity leave notification and eventual return to work in October 2025, she has encountered several issues: the demand to return her company car, reassignment to a less responsible role, and rejection of reasonable adjustments for her health and work arrangements. This essay will analyse Kate’s legal entitlements under UK employment law, focusing on maternity rights, discrimination, and reasonable adjustments for health-related needs. The discussion will explore key legislation, such as the Equality Act 2010 and the Employment Rights Act 1996, to provide clear advice on her potential claims and remedies. The essay is structured into sections addressing each key issue, followed by a conclusion summarising the findings and their implications.
Maternity Rights and Return to Work
Under UK employment law, Kate is entitled to specific protections during and after maternity leave. The Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) and the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999 (MPLR 1999) outline that employees taking Ordinary Maternity Leave (OML) and Additional Maternity Leave (AML) have the right to return to the same job on no less favourable terms and conditions (ERA 1996, s.71; MPLR 1999, reg.18). If the same job is not available due to reorganisation, the employer must offer a suitable alternative role with terms no less favourable than the original position.
In Kate’s case, her return to Greentel Ltd in October 2025 was marked by a transfer to a different team with significantly reduced responsibilities. Although her salary and terms remain unchanged, the nature of her new role—described as lacking decision-making authority and being less stimulating—suggests a potential demotion. Courts have previously interpreted a ‘suitable alternative role’ as one that matches the employee’s skills and status (see, for instance, Blundell v Governing Body of St Andrew’s Catholic Primary School [2007]). Kate’s reassignment to a role with diminished responsibility arguably fails this test, potentially breaching her rights under MPLR 1999. She could raise a grievance with Greentel, and if unresolved, consider a claim for unfair treatment related to maternity leave through an Employment Tribunal.
Furthermore, the lack of communication upon her return—no one expecting her arrival—demonstrates poor management practice and could contribute to a claim of maternity discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, which will be explored in the next section. For now, it is evident that Greentel may not have fully upheld Kate’s statutory right to return to a comparable role.
Maternity Discrimination and Unfavourable Treatment
The Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010) provides protection against discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy and maternity, a protected characteristic under section 18. This includes protection from unfavourable treatment during a ‘protected period’ (from pregnancy notification to the end of maternity leave) and beyond if the treatment relates to maternity. Unfavourable treatment may include demotion, exclusion, or less favourable working conditions (EA 2010, s.18(2)).
Kate’s experience, particularly the reassignment to a less responsible role, could constitute unfavourable treatment related to her maternity leave. Case law, such as Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd [1994], establishes that treating an employee less favourably due to pregnancy or maternity is inherently discriminatory and does not require a comparator. Additionally, the incident with the company car on her last day before maternity leave—leaving her to navigate a difficult journey home—may be seen as insensitive and potentially discriminatory if linked to her pregnancy announcement. Although a one-off event, it contributes to a pattern of perceived unfair treatment.
Kate might argue that these actions amount to maternity discrimination under EA 2010. To pursue this, she would need to demonstrate a causal link between her maternity leave and the unfavourable treatment. If successful, remedies could include compensation for injury to feelings or reinstatement to a comparable role. However, Greentel might counter that the reorganisation was unrelated to her leave, and the car incident was standard policy. Kate should gather evidence, such as performance reviews or correspondence, to strengthen her case.
Reasonable Adjustments for Health Needs
Kate’s chronic back pain, exacerbated by childbirth and a pre-existing condition, raises the issue of disability under the Equality Act 2010. A disability is defined as a physical or mental impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on day-to-day activities (EA 2010, s.6). Chronic back pain, especially if it hinders her ability to sit for long periods, could meet this threshold, particularly as it persists post-Caesarean and is described as chronic.
Under EA 2010 (s.20), employers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees to mitigate disadvantages in the workplace. Kate’s request for a back-friendly chair—used by colleagues—and her request to work from home two days a week (a practice allowed for others with young families) appear reasonable. The rejection of these requests may breach Greentel’s duty, especially since similar accommodations are evidently feasible within the company. Case law, such as Archibald v Fife Council [2004], underscores that employers must take proactive steps to support employees with disabilities, even if adjustments involve cost or inconvenience, provided they are reasonable.
Kate could argue that Greentel’s refusal constitutes a failure to make reasonable adjustments, potentially amounting to disability discrimination (EA 2010, s.21). She should document her requests, medical evidence of her condition, and any responses from Greentel. If the issue persists, she may seek resolution through internal grievance procedures or, ultimately, an Employment Tribunal claim. However, Greentel might argue that the adjustments are not reasonable due to cost or operational constraints, though this would need to be substantiated.
Work-from-Home Request and Indirect Discrimination
Beyond disability, Kate’s request to work from home two days a week also engages issues of indirect discrimination under EA 2010 (s.19). Indirect discrimination occurs when a seemingly neutral policy or practice disproportionately disadvantages individuals with a protected characteristic, such as sex or disability, unless justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Since other team members with young families are permitted to work from home, Greentel’s refusal to grant Kate the same flexibility could disproportionately affect her as a new mother and someone with health challenges.
While not explicitly tied to maternity discrimination (as the protected period may have ended), this could be argued as indirect sex discrimination, given that women are statistically more likely to bear primary childcare responsibilities (ONS, 2020). Kate could challenge this refusal, seeking to establish that the policy disadvantages her and lacks objective justification. Greentel might counter that operational needs prevent such flexibility in her new role, but they must demonstrate this necessity. This issue further compounds the sense of unfair treatment Kate experiences.
Conclusion
In summary, Kate has several potential claims under UK employment law concerning her treatment at Greentel Ltd. Firstly, her reassignment to a less responsible role upon return from maternity leave may breach her statutory right to return to the same or a suitable alternative job under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999. Secondly, this reassignment, coupled with the company car incident, could constitute maternity discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. Thirdly, the rejection of reasonable adjustments for her chronic back pain—a potential disability—likely violates Greentel’s duty under EA 2010. Lastly, the denial of her work-from-home request may amount to indirect discrimination. Kate should initially pursue internal grievance procedures, supported by evidence of her medical condition and prior performance, to resolve these issues. If unsuccessful, she may consider Employment Tribunal claims for discrimination and failure to make adjustments. The implications of this case highlight the importance of employers adhering to statutory protections for maternity and disability, ensuring fair treatment and reasonable accommodations. Kate’s situation underscores broader challenges faced by employees balancing health, family, and career progression, necessitating robust legal and organisational support.
References
- Archibald v Fife Council [2004] UKHL 32.
- Blundell v Governing Body of St Andrew’s Catholic Primary School [2007] IRLR 498.
- Employment Rights Act 1996. London: HMSO.
- Equality Act 2010. London: HMSO.
- Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/3312). London: HMSO.
- Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2020) Gender differences in childcare and work. London: ONS.
- Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd [1994] ECR I-3567.
