Case 3302598/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Franklin (counsel) For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302598/2023
- Decision date
- 20 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cowen
- Venue
- Watford Tribunal
- Panel members
- Mr D Bean, Mr D Sutton
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms Franklin (counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Jones was a prison officer and dog handler who sought partial retirement so she could reduce her hours and work 1 in 4 weekends while helping to care for her father, whom the Tribunal accepted was disabled. The Tribunal found that the Respondent repeatedly imposed and maintained a 1 in 2 weekend rota for dog handlers, and that the Claimant was allocated to the weekends with fewer handlers rather than being rostered on the alternative weekends where cover could still have been maintained.
The indirect disability discrimination claim failed on jurisdiction. The Tribunal accepted that this was an associative 'friends and family' complaint, but held that s.19 Equality Act 2010 did not extend to that type of claim on the authorities it reviewed, including Chez, Rollett and Follows.
The indirect sex discrimination claims succeeded. The Tribunal accepted that women remained the majority of carers and that a PCP requiring part-time dog handlers to work 1 in 2 weekend shifts disadvantaged women. It accepted the Respondent's aim of ensuring security and dog cover at HMP Pentonville, but found the means disproportionate because no real consideration was given to alternatives, the rota could have been adjusted, and the Claimant ultimately moved to a 1 in 4 weekend pattern.
Most victimisation allegations were dismissed because the Tribunal found the relevant decisions were driven by opposition to part-time dog handling, workload, or organisational delay rather than the Claimant's protected acts. The allegations about refusal or delay in agreeing her proposed shift pattern, the 2 November 2022 comment about reapplying for her job, the November 2022 shift imposition, and the sick leave excusal delay were all dismissed. However, the Tribunal upheld the allegations that the Workforce Planning Committee failed and/or refused to consult her about shift patterns and imposed the 3 February 2023 shift pattern, finding that those decisions were taken when the relevant managers knew of her discrimination grievances and that they were linked to those complaints. Remedy was left to a separate hearing.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination by association; the Tribunal treated this as a 'friends and family' case and held that it had no jurisdiction under s.19 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | All indirect sex discrimination claims succeeded. The Tribunal found that the weekend-shift PCPs placed women, and the Claimant in particular, at a disadvantage and were not shown to be proportionate. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Issues 4.2.1 and 4.2.5: refusal and/or delay in agreeing the Claimant's proposed shift pattern from 30 August 2022 onwards and to the end of November 2023. Dismissed because the Tribunal found the reason was opposition to part-time dog handling, not the protected acts. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Issue 4.2.2: alleged threat on 2 November 2022 that the Claimant might have to reapply for her job or be dismissed. Dismissed; the Tribunal found there was no direct threat to her employment and no detrimental treatment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Issue 4.2.3: imposition of a shift pattern in November 2022. Dismissed for lack of causal link to the Claimant's protected acts. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- Chez Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia
- Rollett v British Airways
- Follows v Nationwide Building Society
- Essex County Council v Jarrett
- Deer v Walford
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Martin v Devonshires Solicitors
- Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd
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.