Ms S Reyland v Hanley Smith Limited — 2021

Ms Reyland worked for Hanley Smith Limited from 2005 and returned after maternity leave on reduced hours. From 2018 she sought to work from home in part because of childcare and because her youngest child had serious health problems. The tribunal found that the respondent had adopted a policy requiring administrative staff to work from its premises, and that the claimant's 9 May 2019 email did not meet the statutory requirements for a flexible working application under section 80F ERA 1996. That claim was therefore dismissed.

On direct sex discrimination, the tribunal rejected the claimant's proposed comparators, who were managers doing different work. It found there was no evidence that a hypothetical male administrator in the same material circumstances would have been treated differently. On indirect sex discrimination, the tribunal accepted that the office-attendance PCP was applied equally to men and women and took judicial knowledge of the greater childcare burden on women. It also accepted that the claimant herself was disadvantaged because she had to take unpaid dependent leave when caring for her son. The claim nevertheless failed because the respondent showed that the PCP pursued legitimate aims connected with document security, traceability, regulatory compliance, customer demands, and the practical requirements of the work, and that the policy was proportionate.

The associative indirect disability discrimination claim failed. The tribunal accepted that the respondent knew of the child's disability, but held that section 19 EqA 2010 requires the claimant's own protected characteristic and did not permit a claim based on association. It said that, if such a claim were possible, it would have failed on justification in the same way as the indirect sex discrimination claim.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal accepted that there was a genuine redundancy situation and that the reason for dismissal was redundancy, but found that the overall process was unfair. It accepted that there was adequate warning and consultation, and that it was reasonable to place the three administrators in the selection pool and exclude the accounts assistant/office manager. However, it identified material problems in the scoring and appeal process, including incorrect scores that were later altered, an intervention by Mr Riches on lateness during the appeal, and an appeal outcome that suggested the respondent preferred the retained administrator. The tribunal also found that the respondent had not properly considered from the outset whether the claimant could have been accommodated through part-time working or a job share. It therefore held the dismissal unfair and said the compensatory award should be reduced by 65% to reflect the chance that she would have been dismissed in any event if a fair process had been followed.

The victimisation claim was dismissed. The alleged detriments were the redundancy selection and dismissal after the claimant presented her first ET1. The tribunal did not infer a causal link from the incidents relied on by the claimant, including comments, office atmosphere, the shredder notice and the lottery request, and it found that the redundancy selection and dismissal were not because of the protected act. A remedy hearing was listed for 13 August 2021, so no final monetary award was determined in this judgment.