Co-op Sex Discrimination Claim: Former HR Chief Wins £100k After Nearly Decade-Long Legal Battle

Published : May 6, 2026

In Ms Samantha Walker v Co-operative Group Limited and Richard Pennycook, a former HR chief has been awarded more than £100,000 after a tribunal ruled she’d faced sex discrimination and unfair dismissal. This comes following an eight-year-long battle, when the Co-op sex discrimination claim first began. Read on as we examine what happened, the tribunal’s judgment and the steps others affected can take.

If you believe you’ve been unfairly dismissed or faced discrimination at work, contact Redmans Solicitors. As employment specialists, we can hear your case, answer your queries and provide expert advice. We can also assess your eligibility to bring a claim and guide those eligible through the legal process.

Learn more about how we can help you now by:

The Facts in Ms Samantha Walker v Co-operative Group Limited and Richard Pennycook

Background to the Co-op Sex Discrimination Claim

Ms Samantha Walker (“the Claimant”) was appointed as director of HR strategic projects at the Co-operative Group Limited (“the First Respondent”) on 25 March 2013. She enjoyed a salary of £190,000 with a £50,000 guaranteed bonus before stepping up to the role of Group Chief HR Officer in 2014, with her base salary rising to £500,000.

Shortly after, an internal restructuring of executive remuneration took place. This led to the Claimant first being offered a reduced salary of £400,000, before agreeing to £425,000 after “a little” pushback. Notably, colleagues Mr Nick Folland and Mr Alistair Asher, who were both more experienced, received salary increases to £550,000.

Equal Pay Issues Raised by the Claimant

In November 2015, the Claimant provided Mr Richard Pennycook, the First Respondent’s chief operating officer (COO) and “Second Respondent,” with an article ultimately implying her desire for pay parity and belief that she was “the victim of unequal pay.” She believed she was already undertaking duties associated with a higher-paying position and felt her remuneration should at least reflect that of her executive peers. According to the Second Respondent, though, he believed the Claimant was merely outlining her “future career aspirations,” rather than complaining about her current circumstance.

Further discussion regarding the Claimant’s pay then allegedly occurred with the Second Respondent on 17 December, while he was away. Rather than offering her a wage increase, though, he reportedly suggested that she join a different team. The Claimant dismissed this idea, instead suggesting that her pay remain the same, but her holiday entitlement be increased.

However, during the proceedings, the Second Respondent refuted the Claimant’s version of events. He asserted that no discussion concerning her wages occurred, stating that her comments were “simply fabrication.” His stance was that he discussed her performance and that she “had lost the confidence of important members of the Board.”

Claimant’s Performance Deemed “Partially Achieved”

Having not heard back from the Second Respondent, the Claimant approached him on 12 January 2016. She informed him of a Guardian article concerning “widespread gender based pay inequality at management level,” and stated that the First Respondent had an equal pay problem itself.

Then, in February, the Second Respondent provided the First Respondent’s group chair with a summary of the 2015 executive reviews. While some colleagues had been rated as “exceeding” or “achieving” in their performance, the Claimant was one of the few considered only “partially achieving.”

Read More: Workplace Racism Rising, According to the TUC

This was allegedly at odds with the Claimant’s previous performance reviews, which had always been rated as “outstanding.” The Claimant further asserted that her performance had been inconsistently reviewed compared with her male colleagues, whom she believed had performed no better.

Co-op Sex Discrimination Claim Arises

Discussions continued over the subsequent months regarding the Claimant’s performance and pay. However, after she took various periods of sick leave and no arrangement could be reached, the Second Respondent wrote to her on 1 April.

At such time, the Second Respondent provided the Claimant with her contractual 12 months’ notice. During the hearing, he claimed that he believed she would remain at the First Respondent, only in a role more suited to her capabilities. He also asserted that the decision wasn’t based on sex but on her performance.

Nonetheless, the Claimant believed this decision was unfair. She didn’t think the Respondents had followed a formal, legally compliant procedure and, on 1 June, raised a formal grievance. Ultimately, she believed things changed after she’d raised the equal pay issue, stating that, since then, she’d been consistently undermined and subjected to “demeaning proposals,” culminating in her termination letter.

Unfortunately for the Claimant, both her grievance and appeal proved unsuccessful, leading to the Co-op sex discrimination claim. Among other things, she also claimed that she’d been unfairly dismissed.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

During the initial 2018 hearing, the employment tribunal looked at the sex discrimination claim. Central to this was the Respondents’ grading of the Claimant’s performance. Notably, while she had been rated “partially achieving,” some of her male colleagues, who had performed similarly, received higher ratings. With this in mind, the tribunal found that the performance-based reason for dismissal was a pretext for the underlying discrimination, upholding this element of her case.

Moving on, the tribunal then considered the Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim. Here, it found various flaws in the Respondent’s disciplinary process. Furthermore, because the dismissal was based on performance, which had already been found discriminatory, the dismissal was ruled unfair. Therefore, given that both the reason and procedure for dismissal were unfair, the tribunal held that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed.

Notably, the employment tribunal also upheld the Claimant’s equal pay claim. However, an employment appeal tribunal subsequently overturned this decision because she couldn’t sufficiently prove that her work was of equal value to that of her male colleagues, thereby justifying equal pay. She opted to appeal this to the Court of Appeal, but this ultimately proved unsuccessful.

Nonetheless, following the Claimant’s successful unfair dismissal and sex discrimination claims, she was awarded £101,373.22 in compensation. Among other things, this comprised a basic and compensatory award, financial loss and injury to feelings.

Co-op Sex Discrimination Claim: The UK Employment Law Context

The Co-op sex discrimination claim highlights key workplace rights under UK law. Firstly, the Equality Act 2010 establishes an individual’s protection from discrimination on the grounds of their protected characteristics. Among others, said characteristics include sex, race, age or religious belief. If someone faces discrimination, harassment, or victimisation related to their protected characteristics, they may be able to claim compensation.

Sex discrimination wasn’t the only claim Ms Samantha Walker brought, though, having also claimed that she’d been unfairly dismissed. Under UK law, employers can only dismiss an employee if it’s for one of the five fair reasons: misconduct, capability, redundancy, statutory restriction or some other substantial reason (SOSR). Yet, even if a potentially fair reason is provided, employers must also follow a fair process, in line with the Acas Code of Practice. If an employer has no fair reason for dismissal and/or follows an unfair process, the employee may, again, be entitled to bring a claim.

Employment Rights Breached? Here’s What You Can Do

If someone believes they’ve been unfairly dismissed or faced any form of discrimination at work, it’s essential they act swiftly. While employment tribunal action is usually a last resort, strict time limits must be met for a claim to proceed.

In the first instance, it’s usually recommended to seek internal resolution. This is because doing so is often quicker and provides the opportunity to resolve the matter informally. Individuals may wish to speak with HR or bring a grievance, the latter of which places additional legal obligations on the employer.

Read More: Nuffield Health Employee Sacked for Raising Concerns About Well-Being Wins £150k

If the matter remains unresolved, though, initiating Acas early conciliation is typically the next step. Similar to the above, this process provides another opportunity to find an informal resolution. It is, however, also required before most claims can be taken to the tribunal.

Yet, if all else fails, individuals can proceed with more formal action. To bring a claim, strict time limits and eligibility criteria must be met; however, if successful, compensation may be awarded.

Get Help with Redmans

If you’ve faced unfair workplace treatment, like in the Co-op sex discrimination claim, and want legal help, contact us today. Redmans Solicitors are experts in the employment sector, and following a brief chat, we can provide specialist advice.

It only takes a moment to discover how we can help you, simply:

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