The importance of demonstrating a sound flexible working outcome is fundamental to avoiding costly discrimination claims.
In the case of Alice Thompson v Manor Estates (2021), Thompson was awarded £185,000 in a sex discrimination case because her employer refused to let her leave work at 5pm to pick up her child from nursery.
Thomson submitted a flexible working request, wanting to work 4 days a week and to change her end time to 5pm as opposed to her normal 6pm. As she was now a new mother, she wanted to spend more time with her family and to establish a work life balance.
The Director refused this request and claimed that he was unable to accept this change due to an inability to reorganise work amongst other employees.
Employment tribunal
At tribunal, Thompson stated that when she announced that she was pregnant, her working relationship with the Director started to change for the worst. She also stated that she was being treated differently because of her pregnancy. When she left for maternity leave, she stated rather than to be treated equally as her colleagues with well wishes for her maternity leave period she was in fact treated as a leaver and ordered to hand in her mobile phone and work keys.
Thompson made an employment tribunal claim based on discrimination and was successfully able to demonstrate unfair treatment.
Flexible Working
So what let the employer down in the flexible working outcome?
It is essential that the employer is able to demonstrate a clear fair PCP (provision, criteria, or practice) that applies to both men and women. Putting one gender at a disadvantage will be questioned at a tribunal, particularly for sex discrimination cases. The employer must objectively justify the refusal of the request as well give a detailed summary as to a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Employers should be aware of the increased risk of pregnancy discrimination cases which has compensated the employee heavily. As a rule, employers should always be respectful and fair to all their staff including pregnant employees.
In the case of Shipp v City Sprint UK limited, Mrs Shipp made a successful unfair dismissal and pregnancy discrimination claim. The Tribunal ordered the employer to pay £25,000 (plus an injury to feelings claim) due to ongoing offensive rude remarks throughout her pregnancy, causing Shipp much mental distress. One example of inappropriate comments made was about her weight and how much she had gained.
In another case, Kinlay v Bronte Film and Television, the employee, an actress, was pregnant at the time her tv show was starting up. The employer stated they were unable to continue with Kinlay’s employment as she was visibly pregnant and the character was not.
Kinlay put forward a successful pregnancy discrimination claim. The employer argued that a non pregnant woman was required for the role and it was a ‘genuine occupational requirement’.
Tribunal concluded that the employer had discriminated and that they had every opportunity to change the lighting, use different costumes to conceal the pregnancy and take face shots which was not explored before dismissing her.
It is important that all staff observe dignity and respect for each other. No employee should receive less favourable treatment based on the 9 protected characteristics as outlined in the Equality Act 2010.
The article is for general information purposes only and should you require any further assistance on the matter please do not hesitate to call our advice-line team on 01455 852028.
