In Eddie Stobart Ltd v Graham, the claimant, Ms Graham, was employed as a planner at Eddie Stobart Ltd’s Newhouse depot in Scotland. In October 2021, she informed her employer of her pregnancy. In March 2022, the employer announced redundancies affecting her role and created new positions. Ms Graham asserted her right to be offered a suitable alternative vacancy under maternity protections, but the employer deemed the new roles unsuitable and required her to undergo a competitive interview. She was unsuccessful in securing a role and was subsequently made redundant in May 2022.
During this process, Ms Graham submitted a grievance concerning her redundancy, but her emails were blocked by the employer’s firewall and were not received. Although she raised the issue verbally during consultation meetings, the employer did not follow up in writing or seek further details from her. The tribunal found that this failure amounted to pregnancy/maternity discrimination and awarded her £10,000 for injury to feelings.
The respondent appealed, arguing that the award was excessive given the limited evidence of injury. The EAT agreed, noting that Ms Graham had described being "shocked" and "upset" but had provided no evidence of humiliation, prolonged distress, or lasting impact. The tribunal had placed the award in the middle Vento band for injury to feelings, but the EAT found this was disproportionate given the procedural nature of the discrimination.
The EAT clarified that while evidence of injury is essential, the manner of discrimination can sometimes justify inferences about emotional harm. Factors such as ridicule, humiliation, or disempowerment may support higher awards. However, in this case, the discrimination arose from a procedural failure rather than overt discriminatory behaviour. The employer had not deliberately ignored Ms Graham’s grievance, and its failure to investigate further was described as a missed opportunity rather than a deliberate act of exclusion. Given this, the EAT determined that the injury to feelings was minimal and should be placed in the lower Vento band, reducing the award to £2,000.
This case underscores the importance of proportionality when assessing injury to feelings awards in discrimination claims. While tribunals can consider the manner of discrimination in cases where evidence of injury is limited, awards must reflect the actual harm caused. Here, the procedural nature of the failure meant that the impact on Ms Graham did not justify a middle-band award.
The case also highlights the importance of handling grievances effectively. While the employer’s failure to follow up on the grievance contributed to a finding of discrimination, the EAT’s decision makes clear that procedural shortcomings will not necessarily justify high compensation unless there is significant evidence of emotional harm. Employers should ensure that grievance procedures are properly followed, particularly for employees on maternity leave, to avoid similar claims.
This decision reinforces that injury to feelings awards must be carefully assessed to ensure they are proportionate to the harm suffered. Employers should be diligent in handling grievances to avoid discrimination claims but can take reassurance that tribunals will evaluate awards based on the evidence of actual injury, rather than procedural failings alone.
For further context on injury to feelings awards, see our previous article on the EAT’s approach to injury to feelings in Vento Bands here.