Case 3201917/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Mathurin v London Underground Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3201917/2020
- Decision date
- 23 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms J Land, Mr M Wood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Mathurin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 for indirect sex discrimination concerning the respondent's non-payment of an unsocial hours allowance to employees who had not been requested to work unsocial hours between 6pm and 7am.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not established that women were put at a particular disadvantage by the policy. It stated that there was no evidence that women, as carers, were at a particular disadvantage in needing flexibility to work unsocial hours compared with men. It also found that, because the claimant was working unsocial hours as part of her specific flexible working request, she had not established that she was subject to the alleged disadvantage.
The tribunal added that, if it had been necessary, it would have found the non-payment justified. It stated that the allowance was paid to incentivise staff to work unsocial hours to maintain a 24-hour service, and that paying it to staff who requested those hours would undermine the purpose of the allowance. The claim failed and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment identifies the claim as indirect sex discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 concerning non-payment of an unsocial hours allowance. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 19 of the Equality Act 2010
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.