Purplebricks ordered to pay former agent £47k in pregnancy discrimination claim
An employment tribunal concluded that Purplebricks failed to make adaptions for a young mother who had returned to work.
Purplebricks has been ordered to pay a former agent more than £47,000 of damages after an employment tribunal upheld a discrimination claim against the online agent.
Murron Stewart, 27, had been an agent with Purplebricks since March 2022 and was described by bosses as a “strong performer,” the tribunal heard.
She informed her line manager that she was pregnant in July 2024, but said she did not want anyone who did not need to know of her pregnancy for work purposes to be informed as she had suffered miscarriages in the past.
However, the line manager went against that instruction and informed the team on a team call of the claimant’s pregnancy. The claimant had good reason for not wishing her pregnancy to be made public, having experienced miscarriages in the recent past.
The treatment was wholly unreasonable and was designed to push the claimant out of her role.”
She moved to virtual working after suffering with morning sickness and later applied to return to work part-time after maternity leave in December 2024 due to “childcare issues and her personal circumstances.”
The tribunal heard that she was invited to a meeting which she thought would be to discuss her health but instead was informed that she was not performing to the required standard and that working part-time was not meeting the requirements of her role.
Unfair treatment
Stewart raised grievances after discovering that her targets were not adjusted in light of her reduced hours and she was not given the level of work previously expected.
The tribunal was told that the workload issues were not resolved and Stewart was later prescribed anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medication.
She lost weight, her sleep was affected and she developed vitiligo which her GP thought may be caused by the stress she was suffering, court documents show.
As a result, Stewart resigned following a meeting on 2nd September 2025 when she was informed that, contrary to the outcome of her grievance and regardless of the number of leads she was provided with, her targets would not be reduced.
She then took Purplebricks to the employment tribunal, which concluded that she had been constructively and unfairly dismissed and discriminated against based on her pregnancy and sex.
Discrimination ruling
The ruling, published last week, 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.
“The treatment was wholly unreasonable and was designed to push the claimant out of her role as the respondent did not want a woman with childcare responsibilities working in her role. The claimant was criticised for not taking calls in the evenings, when she had childcare responsibilities.”
Purplebricks has been ordered to pay her £27,626.73 and the judge added a further award of £18,647 for injured feelings and £1,050 for a basic award. This provides a total payout of £47,323.
The ruling claims the respondent – Purplebricks Group PLC – did not seek to be part of the proceedings.
But it is understood by The Negotiator that the case was issued to the old company’s lawyers before the Strike takeover so Purplebricks Property, as the agent is now known, was unaware of the case.
A statement from Purplebricks said: “The judgement 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.
