Adrienne Liebenberg v 1 DS Smith Packaging Ltd 2 Miles Roberts 3 Stefano Rossi 4 Tim Ellis — 2018

Adrienne Liebenberg brought sex discrimination claims after her dismissal from DS Smith Packaging Ltd, where she had been recruited in 2016 and started work in March 2017 as Commercial Director, later SMI Director. The tribunal found that concerns about her leadership style, collaboration with regional managing directors, and working within the group's budget constraints were raised repeatedly from July 2017 onwards through meetings, emails and the performance review process, rather than emerging only at the point of dismissal in November 2018.

On direct sex discrimination, the tribunal accepted that DS Smith had very low female representation at senior levels and that the claimant was the only woman on R1's leadership team, but it held that the dismissal reasons given by the respondents were the true reasons. It found that the same decision-makers had recruited her, that the concerns about her way of working had been raised consistently over about 14 months, and that none of the comparators she relied on were in materially similar circumstances. The tribunal also noted that senior male employees had been dismissed through a similar informal process involving an offer of settlement agreement or dismissal, so the claimant was not treated less favourably because of sex.

On indirect sex discrimination, the claimant said the respondent applied PCPs requiring particular leadership characteristics, including collaboration, collegiality and effective communication, and that these were in practice expressed through expectations around socialising over long dinners, wine and football. The tribunal found that it had not established such a culture in the sense alleged. It held instead that the concerns about the claimant were about how she worked with the regional teams and management team, including blaming others when things went wrong and not recognising budget constraints, and that the PCPs as applied did not put women at a particular disadvantage.

The victimisation complaint was withdrawn after the evidence closed on 12 March 2020 and the judgment records it as dismissed upon withdrawal. No remedy was awarded.