Ms Joanne Peck v Staffordshire County Council — 2023

The claimant alleged direct sex discrimination arising from the respondent's October 2020 restructure. She relied on four named male comparators and a hypothetical comparator in relation to issues including pooling, suitable alternative roles, redundancy, flexibility, treatment of a secondment or fixed term arrangement, explanations given, and the Public Sector Equality Duty.

The tribunal found that the claimant had been placed in the correct pool and had been matched to suitable alternative History Centre Assistant roles at her substantive grade, with the same total contracted hours and pay protection. It found that Ms Terry had not given the claimant a categorical assurance that forfeiting redundancy on one role would secure redundancy or a suitable alternative Grade 9 role, but had indicated a likely outcome without guarantee.

For the named comparators, the tribunal found either that their circumstances were materially different or that they were treated in materially the same way. It accepted that a properly constructed hypothetical comparator would have been treated in the same way as the claimant. The tribunal concluded that the burden of proof did not shift and that the direct sex discrimination claim was not made out.