Mothercare parenting brand loses discrimination case for very ironic reason

Her compensation package included £20,000 for injury to feelings connected to how the whole process was handled. The judgment was published on 4 December.

The tribunal, held in Watford, found that bosses at Britain's most famous baby company had already decided to "dispense" with her while she was still on maternity leave.

Ms Osborn was "completely blindsided" when she learned she faced redundancy just one month after returning to work.

She joined Mothercare as a technical manager in April 2016 and first took maternity leave the following year.

She became pregnant again in mid-2019 and agreed to another year of leave from May 2020 to May 2021.

Her husband, Andrew, a consultant, initially covered her role for the first six months of her absence.

But the tribunal heard that towards the end of his contract, Mothercare brought in a different consultant, Chris Beeley.

Mr Beeley had previously worked with Chief Product Officer Karen Tyler at rival children's retailer Mammas & Pappas.

Employment Judge George Alliott found that Ms Tyler had decided "probably in November/December 2020" that she wanted to replace Ms Osborn with Mr Beeley.

The company simply waited for her maternity leave to finish before acting on that decision.

Ms Osborn returned from extended maternity leave in June 2021, and in the following month, senior managers discussed removing her role as technical and corporate social responsibility manager via WhatsApp.

Just the next day, Ms Tyler met with Ms Osborn to deliver the news that she could face redundancy – something she found "very upsetting".

She was told she could apply for a more senior position, which was essentially the same job, but wasn't actually offered an alternative role.

"We find that [Mothercare] had decided to dispense with [Mrs Osborn] and was waiting for her maternity leave to come to an end before doing so," Judge Alliott said.

Ms Osborn refused a final consultation meeting in November, calling her termination "unfair and discriminatory". Days later, on December 3, she was dismissed.

The case has sparked warnings for employers across the country.

Tom Moyes, joint head of employment at Blacks Solicitors, called the judgment "a clear reminder to HR professionals that maternity leave does not suspend the need for procedural fairness".

"Decisions cannot be made in advance of consultation. Selection criteria must be objective, consistently applied and supported by evidence," he said.

Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter