In person For the v Mr Neil Greatorex, Director of the Respondent — 2021

The Claimant, Miss Jamie Newton, worked for The Tap Room Limited as a Team Leader and Marketing Assistant from 13 March 2017 until 3 February 2019. The case concerned the Respondent's proposal, after Ms Buttriss left in November 2018, to move from weekly rotas to more settled monthly arrangements and to require the Claimant to work longer day shifts, including starts before 8:30am, finishes after 3pm, and evening and weekend shifts. The Tribunal found that the Claimant had childcare responsibilities for a young son and that Mr Greatorex understood she had such responsibilities, even if he regarded them as a preference rather than a necessity.

On indirect discrimination, the Tribunal identified a provision, criterion or practice requiring the Claimant to work longer day shifts and evening shifts. It found that women with childcare responsibilities were disproportionately affected by such a requirement and that the Claimant was individually disadvantaged by it. The Tribunal accepted that the Respondent had potentially legitimate aims, including staffing the Taproom appropriately, opening at 8am, meeting busy trading periods, and maintaining service after Ms Buttriss' departure, but held that the Respondent did not show that the particular requirements imposed on the Claimant were a proportionate means of achieving those aims. The Tribunal said the Respondent did not carry out the required balancing exercise and failed to justify the PCP, so the indirect discrimination complaint succeeded.

On direct discrimination, the Tribunal found that the Claimant did not establish primary facts from which it could conclude, in the absence of explanation, that she was treated less favourably because of sex. It noted that the shifts identified by the Claimant were worked by both male and female colleagues, and that sex was not shown to be the differentiating factor. The direct discrimination complaint therefore did not succeed. The Tribunal listed the matter for a separate Remedy Hearing and did not record any monetary award in this judgment.