An employment tribunal has ordered Purplebricks to pay more than £47,000 to former estate agent Murron Stewart.
The tribunal concluded that Purplebricks had constructively and unfairly dismissed the 27-year-old.
Stewart also successfully brought discrimination claims relating to pregnancy, maternity and/or sex.
She joined Purplebricks as a local agent in March 2022 and later became an estate agent. The tribunal heard that the company regarded her as a strong performer.
Stewart subsequently became pregnant after previously suffering miscarriages. She initially chose to keep her pregnancy private.
However, her line manager disclosed the pregnancy to colleagues.
Stewart later experienced pregnancy-related health problems, including morning sickness. She then moved to a virtual team.
Purplebricks restructured the business while Stewart was on maternity leave.
She returned to work full-time in December 2024, but found that her role had changed. Her responsibilities included covering the Moray area in Scotland.
Stewart reduced her working hours in January 2025 because of childcare commitments.
The tribunal heard that Purplebricks subsequently raised concerns about her performance and workload. The company also questioned whether part-time working met the requirements of her role.
Stewart eventually resigned after the company’s grievance process failed to resolve the issues. She subsequently brought employment tribunal proceedings against Purplebricks.
The tribunal upheld Stewart’s claims of constructive and unfair dismissal. It also found that she had suffered unlawful discrimination.
The tribunal ordered Purplebricks to pay Stewart £27,626.73, plus £18,647 for injury to feelings.
It also awarded her a further £1,050.
The combined award totals £47,323.73.
Employment judge Amanda Jones said: “The respondent directly discriminated against the claimant 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 respondent.
“The reason for this treatment was because of the claimant’s 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.”
She added: “The Tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence that she loved her role and wanted to stay in it.”
A total award has been set at £47,323.73.
A spokesperson for Purplebricks told the press: “The Judgment relates to proceedings brought against Purplebricks Group plc, a company that was no longer operating the Purplebricks business at the relevant time and which has since been dissolved. The current Purplebricks business was not named as a Respondent to those proceedings and was therefore not a party to the Tribunal process or able to participate in the proceedings.
“The circumstances surrounding the case are being reviewed and, in view of the legal issues arising, we are unable to comment further at this stage. We are proud that more than half of our employees are parents and remain committed to fostering an inclusive and supportive working environment and to treating all colleagues with dignity and respect. We recognise the importance of supporting employees in balancing their professional and personal responsibilities and continue to promote policies and practices designed to support workplace inclusion.”
