Ms Sarah Longman v HML Holdings plc — 2023

Ms Longman worked for HML Holdings plc from 1 February 2007 to 10 July 2020 as Head of Information Systems. The tribunal heard extensive evidence about concerns within the IT teams, the future of the PMS system, and the later shift away from further PMS development. It applied the section 123 Equality Act 2010 time-limit rules, considered continuing act principles from Hendricks, and used the burden-of-proof guidance in Igen, Madarassy and Shamoon.

On direct sex discrimination, the tribunal rejected the allegations about an excluded instant-messaging or WhatsApp group, the alleged renaming of that group, and the suggestion that these matters showed sex-based exclusion. It also rejected the parking-space complaint and the later Tejada comment as insufficient to show sex-based treatment, and it found the alleged exclusion from meetings not proved. The tribunal concluded that the later redundancy decision flowed from the business decision to stop developing PMS and restructure the IT function, not from the Claimant's sex.

On indirect sex discrimination, the alleged PCP requiring the Infrastructure Manager role to be based in Croydon five days a week was not found to have been applied to Ms Longman in any meaningful sense because the pooling discussion never progressed beyond an invitation to consider pooling with Mr Blanchard. The tribunal also held that the point was out of time and was not persuaded that the evidence established the disadvantage said to arise from childcare responsibilities. The harassment complaint failed for the same factual reasons as the direct discrimination allegations, and the tribunal held in any event that the conduct complained of did not continue beyond 23 March 2020.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that HML had shown redundancy as the reason for dismissal within section 98 ERA 1996. It accepted that in April and May 2020 the Respondent made a genuine business decision to freeze PMS development, restructure the IT department and retain the more specialist infrastructure capability. Applying the Williams v Compair Maxam, Polkey, Thomas & Betts, Elliott v Richard Stump and Avonmouth guidance, it held that the consultation, pooling discussion and consideration of alternative vacancies were within the range of reasonable responses and that the dismissal was fair.

Separately, the tribunal treated the holiday issue as a breach of contract claim under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994 and awarded £1,013.37 gross, representing three purchased but untaken holiday days admitted by the Respondent. No separate discrimination or unfair dismissal compensation was awarded.