Going through the change…of job?

February 19, 2026
Introduction

Many employers are increasingly focused on creating workplaces where employees feel comfortable discussing the menopause. The subject has gained significant prominence in both the media and government, and recent legislative developments mean that menopause action plans will become mandatory in 2027 for employers with more than 250 employees (and voluntary from 6 April 2026). The case of Ms L Waller v Swann Engineering Group Ltd looks at an office environment in which the menopause was openly discussed but where complaints were nevertheless raised about menopause‑related comments. In this case, the Tribunal found that the Claimant had been constructively unfairly dismissed after her manager made comments suggesting she was “going through the change”—remarks which, although not amounting to harassment on the facts, formed part of a wider pattern of behaviour that fundamentally breached trust and confidence.

Background

The Claimant was employed as a Programme Co‑ordinator from April 2022 until her resignation in July 2024. Relations deteriorated after two comments were made by the Claimant’s manager, Mr Gregory, which suggested that she was having difficulties concentrating because she was going through the menopause. These were:

  • “Is someone going through the change?”
  • “You’re just acting that way because you’re going through the change.”

The Claimant felt that these comments were said in a derogatory way. Mr Gregory denied this but accepted that there had been a discussion about the menopause; however, he said that the conversation had been initiated by the Respondent’s Health and Safety Officer, not him. The Tribunal was told that the Health and Safety Officer had chosen to speak openly about her personal experience of the menopause to encourage others to share their own experiences and struggles. In addition, the topic of menopause had been raised previously because the Claimant had advised Mr Gregory that she was undergoing tests for perimenopause.

The situation escalated when the Claimant raised concerns with HR about discriminatory treatment. She said that her manager had been “bullying” her and requested the grievance policy. Although the Claimant did not formally raise a grievance, she was invited to have a conversation with the HR manager about her concerns. The HR manager subsequently told Mr Gregory that the Claimant wanted to bring a grievance against him regarding the menopause‑related comments. The relationship between the Claimant and Mr Gregory then worsened.

The Claimant was invited to a formal capability meeting to discuss concerns about her performance and was told that she should move her office equipment to the factory office without explanation. At the capability meeting, the Claimant was presented with a six‑page document detailing concerns about her performance. This was the first time the Claimant had been provided with specifics about the areas in which improvement was required.

A few days after the meeting, the Claimant resigned and brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal, harassment and victimisation.

In her resignation letter, she cited various issues, including:

  • Mr Gregory giving her the “silent treatment”;
  • Being placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP); and
  • Being moved to a noisy, dirty factory office.

The HR manager asked whether the Claimant would reconsider her resignation and offered to arrange a grievance hearing to formally discuss the issues raised. However, the Claimant did not reconsider her decision or accept the offer of a grievance hearing.

Tribunal’s Decision

The Tribunal found that a series of actions by the employer cumulatively destroyed, or seriously damaged, the relationship of trust and confidence, including:

  • Mr Gregory’s two menopause‑related comments;
  • Mr Gregory’s interactions with the Claimant changing, including giving her the “silent treatment”;
  • The unjustified and poorly executed PIP process, which the Tribunal described as coming “out of the blue”; and
  • The sudden relocation to an unsuitable factory office.

The Tribunal particularly criticised the PIP as unfair and unreasonable, as it was implemented with no prior warnings, clear concerns or supportive measures.

The Tribunal also found that it was not unusual for the Respondent’s employees to discuss the menopause at work and noted that the Claimant had previously discussed menopause‑related health matters with her line manager. The Tribunal accepted that Mr Gregory’s comments were not intended to upset the Claimant. It concluded that while the menopause remarks alone would not have amounted to a repudiatory breach, they did not amount to harassment on the grounds of sex.

The victimisation claim succeeded in part, as the Tribunal found that the PIP and the move to the factory office were influenced by the Claimant’s intention to raise a grievance—an intention which was known to the manager.

Lessons for Employers

Employers should consider the following:

  • Foster an open culture about discussing menopause – this case should not be taken as a reason to avoid conversations about menopause. Context is key, and had the subsequent events not occurred, the comments alone would not have resulted in a successful Tribunal claim.
  • Do not retaliate – ensure there is no retaliatory behaviour after an employee raises concerns or a grievance.
  • Use performance improvement processes appropriately – they must be evidence‑based, transparent and genuinely supportive.
How we can help

For further information, or to discuss the issues raised in this case, please contact us to speak to a member of our Employment Team.

Darren Smith
Partner, Employment
<script>
document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function () {
  const deptEl = document.getElementById('acf-author-department');
  const department = deptEl?.dataset?.department;

  if (typeof gtag === 'function' && department) {
    gtag('set', { author_department: department });
  }
});


  window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
  const dept = document.getElementById("author-department")?.textContent?.trim();
  if (dept) {
    window.dataLayer.push({
      event: "authorDataReady",
      author_department: dept
    });
  }

</script>
View profileContact Us
Isabella Milnes-James
View profileContact Us

This reflects the law and market position at the date of publication and is written as a general guide. It does not contain definitive legal advice, which should be sought in relation to a specific matter.

Latest Legal Insights