An office worker who took an extended 28-month maternity leave and refused to return to work, lost her unfair dismissal and discrimination lawsuit against her former employer. The case revolved around Jowita Parsons - an import coordinator at International Forest Products Limited - who spent a considerable period away from her job due to maternity leave and personal matters. While Parsons claimed unfair dismissal and discrimination on pregnancy and sex grounds, the employment tribunal ultimately ruled against her.

Jowita Parsons' extended absence from her job spanned two consecutive maternity leaves and additional time off for family-related issues. Her initial maternity leave started four weeks earlier than planned, shortly after she received a disciplinary warning for "aggressive and inappropriate behaviour" towards her line manager, Ben Wallace. This premature departure, coupled with her lack of clarity regarding her return date, caused disruption within the small company of just 21 staff members and significant stress to her colleagues.

Parsons had joined International Forest Products Limited as an import coordinator in March 2019. Within five months, her line manager - Ben Wallace - expressed concerns about her punctuality and work quality. Later that year, Wallace pointed out a mistake in her work via email, which led to a complaint from Parsons, who stated that their working relationship had "not got off to the best of starts." Subsequently, she received a disciplinary warning for her "aggressive and inappropriate behaviour" towards Wallace.

Following this disciplinary action, Parsons requested to commence her maternity leave four weeks ahead of schedule. As a result, Wallace had to arrange cover for her job at short notice, which resulted in poor business performance and additional stress for her colleagues.

In March 2020, two days after the UK went into lockdown, Parsons requested to extend her first maternity leave to 12 months. Although she was due to return to work in October of that year, she fell pregnant again and requested her second maternity leave to be attached to the first. With extensions due to family issues, she was not due to return to the office until the new year, having been on maternity leave for a total of two years, two months and two weeks.

When her line manager subsequently informed her of the need for additional training upon her return and requested a specific date, Parsons refused to provide one. Instead, she insisted that she would only return once her divorce proceedings and house sale had concluded, leaving her return open-ended.

In February 2022, her employment was terminated after she failed to return to work. Parsons attempted to sue the company for unfair dismissal, discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy and discrimination on the grounds of sex, but her claims were all dismissed by the tribunal.

Employment Judge Angela Shields stated that Parsons had been repeatedly asked to provide a reasonable timeframe for her return to work but was unable to do so. Shields emphasized that the reason for Parsons' dismissal was her refusal to return to work and the company could not keep her role open indefinitely. The Judge stated:

“The reason that the clamant was dismissed was because she refused to return to work and [the company] could no longer keep her role open indefinitely.”

She added:

“The tribunal was also satisfied that there were real pressures on [the firm] to fulfil the role of import coordinator and to have [Parsons] in her position and completing the work... there was a genuine disruption and overburdening of a small company whilst [she] was not in her role.”