Case 3307032/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Platts (the claimant’s husband) For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3307032/2022
- Decision date
- 28 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr.
- Venue
- Cambridge
- Panel members
- Mr. C. Grant, Mr. K Rose
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr. Platts (the claimant’s husband) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld parts of the claimant's flexible working complaint, finding that the respondent failed to deal with the request in a reasonable manner and failed to notify the claimant of its decision within the statutory decision period. Other flexible working complaints, including the complaint that the request was rejected based on incorrect facts, were dismissed.
The tribunal upheld one pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaint relating to the failure to consult the claimant about changes to the product department and the creation of a Material Manager role. It also upheld the indirect sex discrimination complaint concerning the requirement that the claimant work from the office and not partly from home.
The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. Although the tribunal found that the refusal of the flexible working request was unlawful sex discrimination and breached the implied term of trust and confidence, it found that the claimant had affirmed the breach by delaying, accepting changed working hours, returning to work, and continuing to work before resigning.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexible working | Two complaints under section 80G(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 were upheld: failure to deal with the request in a reasonable manner and failure to notify the claimant of the decision within the decision period. Other flexible working complaints were dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The complaint concerning failure to consult the claimant on changes to the product department, particularly the creation of a Material Manager role, succeeded. The remaining pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaints were dismissed. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The complaint of indirect sex discrimination was well founded and succeeded. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant had not been constructively dismissed and dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 80G(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 18 Equality Act 2010
- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- implied term of trust and confidence
- final straw
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.