Asking a Colleague if They’re “Going Through the Change” Doesn’t Constitute Menopause Harassment at Work, ET Rules

Published : February 23, 2026

In Ms Lucie Waller v Swann Engineering Group Limited, a programme co-ordinator has won her constructive dismissal claim and partially succeeded in her victimisation claim. Despite this, the employment tribunal ruled that asking “Is someone going through the change?” doesn’t constitute menopause harassment at work.

Read on as we examine precisely what happened and the tribunal’s judgment. We cover the key lessons for employers and establish what individuals can do if they’ve faced something similar.

If you believe your employment rights have been breached, contact Redmans Solicitors without delay. Our team of employment specialists is here to help. Following a brief consultation, we can assess your circumstances, provide answers, and discuss your possible next steps. For those eligible, we can also guide you through each stage of the legal process.

Learn more about how we can help you by:

The Facts in Ms Lucie Waller v Swann Engineering Group Limited

Background to the Menopause Harassment at Work Claim

Ms Lucie Waller (“the Claimant”) had worked as a programme co-ordinator for Swann Engineering Group Limited (“the Respondent”) since 11 April 2022. Issues arose two years later, however, after she underwent tests for perimenopause. While the results came back negative, Mr Andrew Gregory, who was her line manager and aware of the results, subsequently asked whether she was “going through the change” before later making a similar statement. These comments, which the Claimant later alleged constituted menopause harassment at work, took place on 3 June 2024.

During proceedings, Mr Gregory claimed that the conversation had been started by Ms Ellie Parnham. Ms Parnham was the Respondent’s health and safety officer and was herself going through menopause. She’d chosen to be open about the topic, aiming to improve menopause support in the workplace. As such, it appeared common for such discussions to occur.

Read More: Scottish Teacher Wins £60,000 After Unfair Dismissal for Refusing Transfer Due to Menopause Symptoms

Unfortunately, after the Claimant informed HR that she intended to raise a grievance about Mr Gregory’s comments, workplace attitudes shifted. An email was circulated concerning lateness and timekeeping, and the Claimant’s work activity was tracked. She was also allegedly given the “silent treatment” by Mr Gregory, behaviour the tribunal described as “cold shouldering.”

Claimant Resigns Alleging Constructive Dismissal

On 12 July, the Claimant went on sick leave due to her mental health. She returned to work three days later, having been prescribed antidepressants and referred for counselling.

Upon her return, the Claimant was invited to a performance review meeting, accompanied by a letter outlining concerns, including “lateness” and “attention to detail.” While this wasn’t a disciplinary process, the letter stated that disciplinary proceedings could follow if performance didn’t improve.

Believing the treatment breached her employment contract, the Claimant resigned on 22 July, stating that her position was now “untenable.” She alleged that the Respondent had failed to adequately address her menopause harassment at work grievance, and explained that she’d sought advice from Acas. Declining a plea to reconsider this decision, she subsequently pursued employment tribunal claims, including constructive dismissal, victimisation, and harassment.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Constructive Dismissal and Victimisation Claims Succeed

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal considered the Claimant’s case. Looking first at her claim of constructive dismissal, it highlighted several issues, including Mr Gregory’s comments from 3 June, and the Respondent’s decision to place her on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).

This decision was influenced, at least in part, by data collected from tracking the Claimant’s work activity, which showed that she didn’t always log in or out at the required times under her contract. However, the tribunal found that the Respondent didn’t consider the Claimant’s explanation or the accuracy of the data collected.

Furthermore, aside from potential lateness, the tribunal couldn’t find “any sufficient basis” why the Claimant should have been on a PIP. And while Mr Gregory’s comments alone may not have amounted to a fundamental breach of her employment contract, it ruled that the issues collectively destroyed the relationship of trust and confidence. As such, the tribunal upheld this claim.

Moving on, the tribunal deliberated on the victimisation claim. While some elements were dismissed, it established that the Claimant’s admission that she intended to raise a formal grievance against Mr Gregory in relation to alleged discrimination constituted a protected act.

Notably, performance issues and the subsequent process against the Claimant only arose after such time. Attitudes towards the Claimant noticeably changed following her admission, when Mr Gregory gave her the “silent treatment.” What’s more, the performance improvement plan came “out of the blue,” and without any justification. As a result, the tribunal again ruled in the Claimant’s favour, partially upholding the victimisation claim.

Menopause Harassment at Work Not Found

Finally, the tribunal turned to the claim concerning menopause harassment at work. It ruled that Mr Gregory’s comments about menopause didn’t have the purpose or effect of violating the Claimant’s dignity or creating a hostile or humiliating environment for her. While it acknowledged that she was upset by these comments, it determined she wasn’t “sufficiently” upset to make an immediate complaint or one for more than a month thereafter.

The tribunal pointed to the fact that the Claimant had unfortunately suffered a miscarriage at the time, making her “unduly sensitive to any perceived criticisms,” and less resilient than her usual self. It also considered that menopause was a common workplace topic due to Ms Parnham’s encouragement.

Read More: Equality Act Single-Sex Spaces: What the High Court Ruling Means for UK Employers

Consequently, the tribunal held that the conduct didn’t constitute menopause harassment at work, dismissing this claim. However, since the constructive dismissal and victimisation claims succeeded, the case will proceed to a remedy hearing to determine compensation.

Key Lessons for Employers

While the tribunal ruled against the menopause harassment at work claim above, key lessons can still be taken. Crucially, the context of the comments made in relation to the working environment led to the claim’s dismissal. Where remarks about menopause are made with the intent or effect of violating another’s dignity or creating an intimidating or offensive environment for them, discrimination may be found; this wasn’t true of Mr Gregory’s comments, though.

In his circumstance, discussions concerning menopause were common, since Ms Parnham wanted to remove the taboo around the topic. Furthermore, because the Claimant had already spoken to him about her perimenopause tests and subsequent negative results, he wasn’t making fun of her, but rather suggesting this was causing the difficulties she was experiencing at the time.

For other employers and HR professionals, this distinction is essential. To avoid cases of discrimination, they should foster an environment where open discussions concerning menopause are encouraged, and those experiencing it feel supported.

Read More: Dismissed for Inciting Violence at Work: When Is It Unfair Dismissal in the UK?

To achieve this, employers should:

  • Create a menopause policy that ensures those going through it know what support is available and how to access it, and that senior leaders know how to provide support.
  • Offer training to managers to help them better identify colleagues going through menopause and provide the right help.
  • Foster a respectful workplace where discussions concerning menopause are encouraged.
  • Ensure their reporting mechanisms are confidential and robust, so that any issues are highlighted and adequately addressed.

By taking such steps, employers can help mitigate legal issues while creating a positive workplace, boosting workforce well-being and productivity.

Menopause Harassment at Work: Steps to Seek Justice

If an individual believes they’ve faced less favourable treatment at work because of the menopause, several options are available to seek justice. Regardless of the steps taken, though, gathering as much evidence as possible first is advisable to strengthen one’s case.

Once evidence has been collected, the next step is usually to pursue internal channels. This is because not only are they typically quicker to resolve disputes, but if a resolution can be reached, the stress and costs associated with legal action can be avoided. Internal dispute resolution can be achieved via an informal chat with HR or by raising a formal grievance.

However, if a suitable outcome cannot be achieved through these channels, it may be time to consider early conciliation with Acas. This process is free and independent, and is required before most employment tribunal claims can be brought. It also pauses the clause on bringing a claim, allowing more time to pursue a resolution informally.

As a last resort, employment tribunal proceedings could be initiated. Strict time limits and eligibility criteria must be met, but if the claim is successful, compensation, among other remedies, could be awarded.

Get Help with Redmans

If an individual believes they’ve faced menopause harassment at work, get in touch now. Redmans Solicitors are employment specialists, and after a quick chat, we can provide expert advice. We can also assess your eligibility to make a claim and guide those eligible through the process.

To begin your journey with us today, please:

The information on this page is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.