in person For the v Mr T Sheppard — 2020

The claimant worked for Boots Management Services Limited as a dispensing operative from 22 February 2017 until he resigned on 1 March 2019. He brought complaints of direct and indirect sex discrimination, harassment on grounds of sex, victimisation, associative disability discrimination arising from his mother's disability, and constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal heard extensive evidence about absence reporting, the use of phones and talking in the dispensing area, a borrowed jumper, the application of the dress code, and the grievance process that followed the claimant's complaint about a data breach involving his fit note.

On the sex discrimination case, the tribunal rejected most of the alleged detriments as either not proved or not shown to be because of sex. It accepted that the respondent had a legitimate need to restrict phones and talking because of the nature of the dispensing work, and it did not accept that the claimant was singled out in relation to those matters. The tribunal did, however, accept that the old dress code was applied more rigidly to men than to women, and that the claimant was treated less favourably when he wore three-quarter-length trousers. Even so, that complaint was presented out of time, the tribunal refused to extend time as just and equitable, and it therefore had no jurisdiction to determine it.

The indirect sex discrimination, harassment, victimisation and associative disability complaints were also dismissed. The tribunal held that the uniform policy itself was a PCP applied to both men and women and did not place men at a substantial disadvantage; the problem lay in the inconsistent way it was applied, which was already dealt with as a direct discrimination issue. It found that the conduct relied on for harassment did not meet the statutory test, and that the victimisation case failed because the alleged detriments were not shown to have been caused by protected acts. The associative disability complaint was out of time and, in any event, was about failure to follow the absence-reporting procedure rather than the claimant's association with his disabled mother.

The constructive dismissal claim failed because the tribunal did not find a repudiatory breach of contract. Although it was concerned about aspects of the dress code and accepted that the claimant was upset by the handling of his fit note, it found that the grievance process was carried out properly and that the data-breach complaint was addressed within that process. The tribunal also found that the claimant had delayed before resigning and that the real reason for his resignation was that he had another job offer and wanted to leave his employment.