An estate agent who was forced out of her job after not meeting her targets when returning from maternity leave has won almost £48,000 in compensation.
Murron Stewart, who was considered to be a ‘strong performer’, was told after her maternity leave that she needed to meet the full-time work targets after reducing her hours at Purplebricks, a tribunal heard.
The single mother was not contacted by the company throughout her entire maternity leave, and there was no discussion about how it was best for her to return to her role.
Ms Stewart became increasingly stressed about her job, where she developed vitiligo, a chronic skin condition, and had to go on antidepressants.
At a Scottish tribunal, Ms Stewart won her case of unfair dismissal and maternity discrimination and is now in line for compensation of £47,970.72.
Ms Stewart started working for Purplebricks estate agents in March 2022 as a local property agent, and in February 2023 she was promoted to an estate agent.
She told her manager that she was pregnant in July 2024, but she said that she did not want anyone else at work to know about her pregnancy after previous bad experiences.
Her manager announced her pregnancy on a team call, against Ms Stewart’s wishes.
During her pregnancy, she suffered from severe morning sickness, and she was diagnosed with hyperemesis gravidarum, a severe pregnancy complication.
Ms Stewart asked for a risk assessment to be carried out after her GP told her to, but this was not carried out for a number of months.
It was decided that she should work virtually until she had come back from her maternity leave.
In March 2024, Ms Stewart went on maternity leave, and she was aware that there was going to be a restructure of the company while she was away, so she wanted to be kept up to date and receive relevant training before she returned.
During her time off, a merger occurred that would change how Ms Stewart was expected to operate when she came back, but she was not contacted.
She did attend some virtual training days after asking the company, but this did not involve information about the restructure of the company.
In December 2024, she returned to work on a full-time basis, but she told her manager that she would like to apply for part-time work due to childcare issues and personal circumstances.
She said she intended to work part-time for around six months so that she could afford to pay for full-circle childcare and then she could go full-time.
Ms Stewart started working virtually again without any discussion or explanation to her about why she could not return to her original role.
She worked for 16 hours per week, but she was finding her work increasingly ‘stressful’ and was off sick for a short period.
After returning, she was invited to a meeting, which she thought would be to discuss her health, but she was told that she was not performing to the required standard and working part-time was not meeting the role requirements.
Ms Stewart said that she could not afford to lose her job because she was a single parent.
She found out that her targets had not been adjusted to her part-time hours and that she was not being given the level of work that she had previously.
She raised a grievance in April 2025 and aspects of that were upheld.
But there were no adjustments made to implement the recommendations of the grievance outcomes.
Ms Stewart became increasingly stressed, and this impacted her health to the point where she was prescribed anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medication.
She developed vitiligo and her GP thought this was caused by the stress she was suffering.
In September 2025, Ms Stewart resigned from her from the estate agency because they said that her targets would not be reduced and she had been asked to sign a return-to-work document acknowledging she had breached company policy.
After losing her job, she had to sell her house and move back in with her parents.
Employment Judge Amanda Jones said that the estate agency had unfairly dismissed Ms Stewart.
She said that her dismissal arose from their discriminatory behaviour.
Judge Jones said: “In terms of [Ms Stewart’s] claim of unfair dismissal, the Tribunal was satisfied that [Purplebricks] had acted in breach of [her] contract of employment in that it breached the duty of mutual trust and confidence. In particular, it failed to implement the recommendations made in response to both of [her] grievances.
“There appeared to be a disconnect between her line management and those dealing with the grievances.
“The line management refused to enter into discussions with [her] regarding the outcome of the grievances and continued to subject her to the conduct she had complained of in those grievances.
“That is a fundamental breach of contract, and [she] was entitled to resign in response.
Judge Jones said that the estate agency had discriminated against Ms Jones both throughout her pregnancy and after she returned from her maternity leave.
She said: “[Purplebricks] discriminated against [her] on grounds of pregnancy and maternity by failing to keep in touch with her during her maternity leave and failing to provide her with information and training in relation to the new structure of the business which was implemented during her maternity leave.
“In addition, it discriminated against her [by] failing to allow her to return to her previous role on her return from maternity leave and failing to discuss with her a return to a field rather than a virtual role.
“[The estate agency] directly discriminated against [her] because she had been on maternity leave and/or her sex in that she was subjected to criticism on her performance which was unreasonable and required to meet targets which were not adjusted to reflect her part-time hours or the level of referrals made to her by [the estate agency].
“The reason for this treatment was because of [her] caring responsibilities, that no efforts were made to discuss the arrangements for her return to work on a similar basis as she had been working previously and a man in similar circumstances (who had returned from a period of leave) would not have been treated in the same manner.
“The treatment was wholly unreasonable and was designed to push [her] out of her role as [the estate agency] did not want a woman with childcare responsibilities working in her role.
“[She] was criticised for not taking calls in the evenings, when she had childcare responsibilities.”
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies