Employment Law, Maternity, Discrimination, Vento bands, Grievance procedure.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed an appeal against a manifestly excessive award of £10,000 for injury to feelings, substituting it with £2,000 plus interest. This judgment provides authoritative guidance on assessing injury to feelings awards in discrimination cases, particularly the relationship between the manner of discrimination and severity of injury suffered.

Background

The claimant was employed as a planner by Eddie Stobart Limited for ten months, notifying her line manager of pregnancy in October 2021. In March 2022, the respondent announced the redundancy of nine planners in Scotland, including the claimant, proposing to create four new “transport shift manager” (TSM) roles.

The claimant asserted her statutory right to suitable alternative employment during maternity leave under Regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999. The respondent deemed the TSM roles unsuitable, requiring competitive interviews. The claimant commenced maternity leave on 12 April 2022 and was unsuccessful at interview the following day.

She subsequently submitted a grievance which was blocked by the respondent’s firewall. During her notice period, she mentioned the unanswered grievance to HR, who failed to follow up appropriately. Her employment terminated on 26 May 2022.

The Employment Tribunal rejected her unfair dismissal claim but upheld her complaints of detrimental treatment and pregnancy/maternity discrimination regarding grievance handling, awarding £10,000 for injury to feelings.

Judgment

Judge Clarke held that the ET’s award was manifestly excessive and inadequately reasoned:

Firstly, the award was perverse given the limited evidence of injury. The claimant merely stated she was “shocked and upset” by the respondent’s dismissive attitude. This sparse evidence could not justify an award at the lower end of the middle Vento band (£9,900-£29,600).

Secondly, the ET failed to adequately explain its reasoning for the specific quantum. While the manner of discrimination can inform assessment of injury severity, “it should be applied with caution” and cannot serve as a proxy for the claimant’s actual injury.

The EAT substituted an award of £2,000 plus interest, finding the respondent’s failure “limited in scope and impact” – a procedural rather than substantive failing, involving missed opportunities to address a non-meritorious grievance.

Endnote

This judgment establishes critical principles for injury to feelings assessments by tribunals. It delineates the proper analytical approach: (1) primary focus must be on compensating actual injury suffered rather than punishing conduct; (2) the manner of discrimination is merely an inferential tool when direct evidence is sparse; (3) tribunals must articulate a reasoned basis for quantum. The decision reinforces the importance of proportionality in discrimination awards and provides a methodological framework for future assessment.

Read the full decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal: Eddie Stobart Limited v Graham [2025] EAT 14