For advice on preventing discrimination and harassment in the workplace, or if you need representation in a tribunal, call our Employment team on 01332 226 155 or fill in the form below.
In the case of Mellor -v- The MFG Academies Trust, an employment tribunal has held that it was sex harassment for an employer to fail to provide a private space for an employee to express breast milk at work, leaving her to express milk either in the toilets or her car. However, the tribunal dismissed the employee’s direct and indirect sex discrimination claims which were brought at the same time.
23 June 2022
Case Study
The Claimant, Ms Mellor, had been allowed to express milk in a special room at Mirfield Free Grammar School after her first child but was told this was ‘not an option’ due to COVID-19 rules after the birth of her second baby, despite her repeatedly asking for access to facilities.
As no room was provided, Ms Mellor was left with few alternatives for expressing: in the car park, where she ran the risk of being seen by students; or the “often dirty” toilets during her lunch break.
Due to the fact that her lunch break lasted only 25 minutes, and expressing milk takes up to 20 minutes, Ms Mellor had little time for anything else during her break and was often forced to eat her lunch in the toilets while expressing milk, which she found “unhygienic” and “disgusting”.
Ms Mellor told the tribunal she believed the MFG Academies Trust had an altogether “negative attitude” towards pregnancy and maternity. The Trust responded to this by stating that in their view, Ms Mellor would have raised a grievance if she’d had a real issue in respect of a place to express milk.
Case Study
The Tribunal found that the Claimant “reasonably and genuinely felt compelled to act in a way that she did not want to, she was, we find, forced to do so”.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent subjected the Claimant to unwanted conduct by forcing her to express milk in the toilet and/or car park and that the conduct of the Respondent had the effect of creating a degrading and/or humiliating environment for the Claimant. As such the Tribunal found that the Respondent had subjected the Claimant to harassment on the grounds of her sex.
Though this is only an Employment Tribunal decision and therefore not binding, it is a reminder for employers to take steps to support women who are pregnant and upon their return to work following a period of maternity leave, and to ensure that adequate facilities are provided, especially where these are specifically requested.
Related Services
The Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on the enforceability of training repayment clauses in employment contracts.
Read More
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified when employers may be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's disability.
Read More
Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read More
An employer's failure to involve an employee in an investigation led to findings of disability discrimination and compensation.
Read More
The EAT highlights the limits of protected conversations and the risks employers face when discussions are handled incorrectly.
Read More
Employer ordered to pay over £264,000 after a reference referring to an ongoing dispute was found to amount to victimisation.
Read More
Download expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read More
EAT confirms endometriosis can be a disability and examines reasonable adjustments, dismissal risks and performance management issues for employers.
Read More
EAT confirms withdrawing a conditional job offer can breach contract with employers understanding when an offer is binding and notice applies.
Read More
EAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read More
EAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read More
EAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read More