Morrisons tribunal: Wetherby mother wins £60k in court battle against former employer over unfair dismissal and sex discrimination

The Bradford-based supermarket giants were ordered to pay £60,442.25 to mother-of-two Donna Patterson, after she had her role changed while on maternity leave and then was “gas lighted” and made to work full-time upon her return despite being on a part-time contract.

Ms Patterson’s mental health deteriorated and after going on leave due to stress, she undertook a grievance process with the company. However, when her concerns were rejected she left and took legal action.

Ms Patterson represented herself during the “gruelling” five-day tribunal in Leeds after being told that her chances of success were minimal and due to extensive costs being requested by law firms.

During the tribunal it was heard that Morrisons had planned to demote her when she was pregnant, which sent the judge “ballistic”.

Describing her reaction when the unanimous verdict was announced last Friday (October 21), she said: “I just sat there and tears streamed down my face. Just from the sheer relief that it was worth it – worth all of the stress, all of the effort and worth everybody saying ‘why not just walk away and move on’.”

Morrisons was approached for comment but did not respond.

Ms Patterson started working at Morrisons in 2008 before leaving and then returning in 2018 to a buying role for the online sales.

She was asked to change her role to buying confectionary but after telling the company she was pregnant with her second baby she said “the role was taken away from me”.

She was working in the online role when she went on maternity leave in August 2020 ahead of the birth of her second child, who is now two years old.

She said that shortly after he was born she received a call from HR telling her there had been “a restructure of the online team”, but that there would be a job in the company upon her return.

Ms Patterson said: “My baby was around two months old and it was during the pandemic so my head probably was not in the right place to have a discussion like that.

"At the tribunal that was what the judge was most frustrated about – there being no duty of care.”

After deciding to return to work in August 2021 she contacted HR and her manager numerous times to discuss her return and ask what her new job was but received no replies.

She was eventually given an email for someone in HR, who told her that the only job available for her was in core grocery.

Ms Patterson tried to appeal to stay in online buying as “people move jobs all the time” and because supermarket buying is particularly difficult when working part-time but these requests were rejected.

Ms Patterson said: “There was no discussion to be had about it.”

Morrisons were also reluctant to let her work from home during the role or work half days to pick up her children.

When she returned to work in August, Ms Patterson said she didn’t have an agreed shift pattern and when she approached her manager, he said he was expecting she would work full time.

Though they then vowed to find her a more suitable role, Morrisons instead asked her to stay in the job as they “decided it could be done in my part time hours”.

She said that she started “drowning in work” and “people would criticise me for not meeting deadlines”.

Ms Patterson said: “I felt absolutely gas lighted. It was driving me mad.

"I was showing them why it was not possible and they just sat there and said ‘no it’s fine, you are good at your job and you just need to prioritise’.”

She added: “I said I can either work to the point of breaking to get this work done in part-time hours or do the part time hours and destroy the reputation I’ve built over 15 years.”

In December Ms Patterson’s doctor signed her off on work-related stress and while off her manager called with a work-related query. She was also contacted to say that her company sick pay was ending.

Before going back Ms Patterson contacted Morrisons to ask them what was going to be done to help her return to work and requested training for and apologies from “those that failed me” but her suggestions were rejected.

In March this year Ms Patterson resigned over a “total breakdown of trust” and looked to take legal action.

Her home insurance providers “didn’t believe I had a successful claim on my hands”. Other solicitors wanted tens of thousands of pounds so she decided to take it on herself, which she admitted was “petrifying”.

During the “exhausting” five-day trial, which started on October 17, she cross-examined eight of her former colleagues.

After leaving she submitted a data subject access request and came across a letter that showed there were plans to demote her when she was pregnant.

Ms Patterson said: “The judge went ballistic when that came out.

"To plan to demote a pregnant woman is totally unacceptable.”

Meeting minutes she received showed her manager had “questioned my priorities” after becoming a mother of two and that a HR representative had said that the restructure of the online team when Ms Patterson was pregnant “wasn’t fair”.

Another file showed that Morrisons expected her to be contactable even on non-working days.

On the Friday (October 21) the judge announced that the panel unanimously ruled in her favour.

Ms Patterson said: “It was a complete relief.

"I was conscious that what had happened was morally wrong but might not have broken the right legal criteria.

"Fortunately I had a really great judge and panel and because of the work I had put in it was quite clear that employment law had been broken.”