Case 3331221/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Abdul v Santander UK plc — 2019
- Case reference
- 3331221/2018
- Decision date
- 9 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Glennie
- Panel members
- Mr M Reuby, Mrs C Ihnatowicz
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Abdul
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, while on maternity leave, applied to continue her established part-time working hours but only during school term-times. The respondent delayed considering the request and ultimately refused it, later rejecting the claimant's appeal and grievance. The tribunal found that the refusal itself was based on staffing and operational considerations and was not because of maternity leave.
The pregnancy/maternity discrimination claim succeeded in two respects. The tribunal found that the delay in dealing with the flexible working application was a detriment and that the claimant's absence on maternity leave materially contributed to that delay. It also found that the decision to notify her that she would return to the Cheapside branch, without prior consultation, amounted to a detriment and was attributable in part to her being away on maternity leave.
The direct sex discrimination claim was dismissed because most allegations fell within the statutory pregnancy/maternity framework and the remaining allegation failed on the same reasoning as the maternity claim. The indirect sex discrimination complaint about the Lifestyle 260 contract was dismissed because no relevant PCP, group disadvantage, or personal disadvantage was established. The direct disability discrimination complaints were dismissed because the tribunal found that the claimant's medical conditions played no part in the acts or omissions complained of.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Upheld only in relation to allegations (a) delay in considering the flexible working application and (d) requiring return to the Cheapside branch. Allegations (b), (c) and (e) were not well-founded. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination allegations (a)-(d) were excluded by Equality Act 2010 s18(7), and allegation (e) failed on the merits. The indirect sex discrimination complaint based on allegation (c) was also dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination allegations (a), (d) and (e) were dismissed. The respondent conceded disability by depression, but the tribunal found no causal link between the treatment complained of and the claimant's medical conditions. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Equality Act 2010 s18
- Equality Act 2010 s13
- Equality Act 2010 s19
- Equality Act 2010 s39
- Equality Act 2010 s136
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Onu v Akwiwu
- Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
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.