JPP Law Blog
Optician was discriminated against following maternity leave
An optician has won her claim of unfair dismissal and discrimination after her employer tried to reclaim training costs following her maternity leave.
Ms M Walworth had joined the opticians and hearing care firm Scrivens as an optical advisor. She signed a training and services agreement which stated that she would be liable to repay any training costs if she left the company within three years of registering as a dispensing optician.
She eventually registered after four years of training. Eight months later she informed the company that she was pregnant and requested to go on maternity leave.
She had only completed 16 months of the three-years post-qualification period. That would continue when she returned from her maternity leave.
When the time came, Ms Walworth was reluctant to return at the planned date as her daughter was suffering from health problems.
She asked for more time off in the form of holiday pay or a sabbatical, but her request was refused. She was told that if she resigned she would be liable to repay £11,000 under the training agreement.
She resigned and said that Scrivens had 'fundamentally broken' their contract due to the way they had dealt with her pregnancy and maternity leave.
However, Scrivens made a formal demand for the £11,000 and withheld her holiday pay for the final year.
The Employment Tribunal found that there was nothing in the contract that would justify the company pausing the employment for maternity or any long-term absence.
The judge said: "The imposition and use of the 'pause clause' appears to us to be a classic case of unfavourable treatment (because of) maternity leave, and thus unlawful discrimination on the basis of pregnancy or maternity."
For further advice on any of the issues raised in this article, or for employment law advice more generally, please contact JPP Law on 020 3468 3064 or email info@jpplaw.co.uk
JPP Law Blog

- Case Studies and Reviews (9)
- Commercial Law (108)
- Dispute Resolution (27)
- Employment Law (119)
- Intellectual Property (3)
- Start-ups (25)
- Videos (8)
- 2022 May (1)
- 2022 April (3)
- 2022 March (2)
- 2022 February (2)
- 2022 January (2)
- 2021 December (1)
- 2021 November (1)
- 2021 October (1)
- 2021 September (1)
- 2021 August (1)
- 2021 July (1)
- 2021 May (1)
- 2021 April (1)
- 2021 March (1)
- 2021 February (1)
- 2021 January (1)
- 2020 December (1)
- 2020 November (2)
- 2020 October (2)
- 2020 September (2)
- 2020 August (1)
- 2020 July (3)
- 2020 June (1)
- 2020 May (3)
- 2020 April (1)
- 2020 March (2)
- 2020 February (2)
- 2020 January (2)
- 2019 December (2)
- 2019 October (1)
- 2019 September (5)
- 2019 July (3)
- 2019 June (2)
- 2019 May (2)
- 2019 April (3)
- 2019 March (2)
- 2019 February (2)
- 2019 January (2)
- 2018 December (2)
- 2018 October (4)
- 2018 September (12)
- 2018 February (6)
- 2018 January (7)
- 2017 December (2)
- 2018 July (14)
- 2018 June (2)
- 2018 May (13)
- 2018 April (8)
- 2018 March (11)
- 2017 November (6)
- 2017 October (12)
- 2017 September (14)
- 2017 July (7)
- 2017 June (10)
- 2017 May (6)
- 2017 April (4)
- 2017 March (11)
- 2017 February (6)
- 2017 January (1)
- 2016 December (2)
- 2016 September (4)
- 2016 July (1)