Louise Carter v EDF Energy Customers Limited — 2025

The claimant worked for the respondent from 1992 and had worked permanently from home since 2001, with a contractual arrangement that she commute to the respondent's Exeter office once a month. The tribunal found that, during the Project Pluto consultation about closure of the Plymouth office, the claimant was meaningfully consulted and agreed to be reclassified as a homeworker affiliated to Exeter, while remaining subject to occasional travel to Exeter under paragraph 3.14 of the Collective Agreement.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had a disability consisting of back pain and menopausal symptoms, but found that monthly travel to Exeter was not impossible and remained a reasonable contractual requirement. It relied on the medical material, the adjustments offered by the respondent, including payment of travel expenses, travel time, breaks, and overnight accommodation, and concluded that the claimant's real position was that she did not wish to travel at all. The indirect discrimination claim therefore failed because the policy pursued legitimate aims of team integration, collaboration and training and was proportionate.

The tribunal also rejected the claim that the coaching provided after the claimant's return from absence was performance management or unfavourable treatment arising from disability. It found that the coaching was ordinary support, initiated because the claimant had said she was stressed, and intended to build her back up after absence. The tribunal found that the comments made by Mr Edwards about the menopause on 6 and 15 June 2022 were well intended and appropriate in context, and that the appeal-stage questioning by Mrs Shaw did not amount to harassment.

As to time limits, the tribunal held that discriminatory acts before 23 August 2022 were out of time, but it extended time on a just and equitable basis because of the claimant's disability, bereavement, and the fact that she was trying to resolve matters through the grievance process. It then dismissed the victimisation claim, finding that the appeal outcome reference to the long-term viability of the employment relationship was prompted by the impasse over monthly Exeter attendance, not by the claimant's protected act.

The constructive dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and no repudiatory conduct by the respondent. It held that the claimant resigned on 9 November 2022 because she did not wish to commute to Exeter at all, whereas the respondent required monthly attendance. The redundancy payment claim also failed because the claimant resigned rather than being dismissed, and the tribunal found no evidence that her role was redundant. The unpaid wages issue had been resolved before the hearing.