And speaking of career shifts brings me to the case of Eddie Stobart Limited v Caitlin Graham 2025, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered whether an award of £10,000 for injury to feelings was excessive.

Ms Graham commenced employment with Eddie Stobart Limited in July 2021 as a planner at the Newhouse Depot in East Glasgow.. Around October 2021, Ms Graham became aware of her pregnancy and subsequently began her maternity leave in April 2022.

In March 2022, ESL decided to discontinue the planning function in Scotland as part of a reorganisation. In the same month, the business announced a 30-day consultation period concerning the proposed redundancy of all nine planners based at Newhouse Depot, alongside the creation of four new Transport Shift Manager (TSM) roles at that location.

Ms Graham was informed by email in March 2022 that she was at risk of redundancy. The email also notified her that her first redundancy consultation meeting would take place on 1 April 2022. The following day, she received an email containing a list of vacancies within the business, which included the four TSM roles at Newhouse.

At the outset of the consultation process, Ms Graham asserted her right, under Regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999 (MAPLE Regulations), to be offered suitable alternative employment during maternity leave in preference to other employees at risk of redundancy. The key issue was whether the TSM roles constituted "suitable" available vacancies. ESL ultimately concluded that the TSM positions were not suitable alternative roles and required Ms Graham to attend a competitive interview for the positions.

In April 2022, while the redundancy process was still ongoing, Ms Graham commenced her maternity leave. The following day, she attended the interview for one of the TSM roles. Ms Graham was ultimately unsuccessful in securing a position and subsequently submitted a formal grievance in relation to the matter.

Ms Graham attended her final consultation meeting with a more senior manager, during which she referred to having submitted a grievance two days earlier. The grievance was not discussed further during the meeting, and she was advised to resend it. Ms Graham was provided with an email address for the HR helpdesk for this purpose. Later that same day, she received formal notice of the termination of her employment on the grounds of redundancy.

In May 2022 Ms Graham resent her grievance to the HR helpdesk, using the email address supplied to her. The Employment Tribunal found that although Ms Graham’s grievance emails, sent in April and resent in May 2022, entered the business’s IT system, they were blocked by the firewall as a security risk and were not seen by the recipients. As a result, the grievance did not receive any attention.

Ms Graham did not appeal her dismissal. During a conversation with the head of HR regarding her maternity pay, she raised the issue of her unanswered grievance. The head of HR agreed to investigate the matter and was subsequently informed by a colleague that the grievance had not been received. However, this information was not included in the proceeding correspondence to Ms Graham regarding her maternity pay.

Ms Graham then presented a claim to the ET on the grounds of being automatically unfairly dismissed within the meaning of Section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (read alongside Regulation 20 of the MAPLE Regulations), along with complaints of detrimental treatment and discrimination in relation to pregnancy/maternity and victimisation.

The ET decided that Ms Graham was not unfairly dismissed for the purposes of section 99 ERA as the TSM vacancies were not suitable for her. The complaints of victimisation were also rejected. However, the ET did uphold the complaints of detrimental treatment and pregnancy/maternity discrimination insofar as it found that the respondent failed to take adequate steps to deal with her grievance. The ET accepted that the two grievance emails were blocked by the respondent’s firewall. However, it noted that Ms Graham had submitted a grievance and had directly informed key managers of her concerns. Despite this, they failed to follow up appropriately. No adequate explanation was provided for this failure. The ET found it likely that Ms Graham’s maternity leave influenced the lack of action, contributing to the detrimental treatment she experienced.

The ET awarded Ms Graham £10,000 for injury to her feelings.

ESL appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on two grounds. They argued that the £10,000 award was “so excessive as to be perverse” and lacked sufficient reasoning.

The EAT held that the ET had erred in law by awarding £10,000 for injury to feelings, describing the sum as “manifestly excessive and therefore perverse”. The EAT noted that the ET had limited evidence regarding the extent of Ms Graham’s injury, which was based primarily on her own statements that she felt “shocked” and “upset” due to the dismissive attitude shown towards her views and rights. There was no finding that Ms Graham’s injury extended beyond the immediate experience of the detriment. Furthermore, the EAT found no adverse impact on her work or personal life and observed that she had promptly mitigated her loss by securing alternative employment.

The EAT substituted the original award with a sum of £2,000 plus interest, noting that the ET had failed to adequately explain the rationale for the initial amount. The EAT considered the appropriate level of compensation to fall within the lower Vento band, applicable to less serious cases.

This case highlights the critical importance for employers of complying with maternity-related protections under employment law, particularly the duty to prioritise employees on maternity leave for suitable alternative roles during redundancy processes. The EAT’s decision also underscores the need for clear reasoning when awarding injury to feelings, and for employers to ensure robust grievance procedures that are responsive, even when technical issues arise. Failure to take such obligations seriously can lead to findings of discriminatory or detrimental treatment, financial liability, and reputational harm. Employers should review their redundancy and grievance handling policies to ensure legal compliance and fair treatment of staff.