Mrs J Sharpe v Department for Work and Pensions and 1 other — 2026

Mrs Sharpe, a Grade 7 employee of the Department for Work and Pensions, reduced her hours to three days per week in August 2022 following a partial-retirement request connected with caring responsibilities. She later sought to return to the Employer and Partnership Senior Leader role and expressed interest in a Grade 7 Operational role. The Tribunal found that both roles required full-time Grade 7 coverage, but this did not mean that they necessarily had to be performed by one full-time individual. At the relevant times, however, there was no other part-time Grade 7 available with whom Mrs Sharpe could job share.

The complaint arising from the respondents' refusal on 3 October 2023 to redeploy Mrs Sharpe to the E&P role was presented out of time. The Tribunal found that this decision, the later Operational-role decision and the January 2024 appointment to the E&P role were distinct decisions rather than conduct extending over a period. Mrs Sharpe gave no reason for the delay, and the Tribunal concluded that it was not just and equitable to extend time.

The direct age discrimination claim was dismissed. Mrs Sharpe had not applied for the advertised E&P role and therefore was not treated less favourably when Shola Olawole was appointed through the recruitment process. The Tribunal also noted that Mr Olawole was approximately two years younger than Mrs Sharpe and found no evidence from which age discrimination could be inferred. Mrs Sharpe was considered for the Operational role but was not appointed because she could not work full-time hours and no Grade 7 job-sharing resource was available; the Tribunal found that this reason was unrelated to age.

The indirect sex discrimination claim was dismissed because the alleged provision, criterion or practice—a requirement to work full time to be considered or appointed to the E&P role and other Grade 7 positions—was not established. The Tribunal distinguished between a role requiring full-time coverage and a requirement that one person perform it full time. It also relied on the first respondent's job-share policy, under which the vast majority of posts should be considered suitable for job sharing, subject to the availability of a job-share arrangement.

The age-related harassment claim was dismissed. The evidence about humiliation, distress and isolation concerned how Mrs Sharpe learned of Mr Olawole's appointment rather than an allegation in the agreed list of issues. The Tribunal found no evidence that the pleaded acts had the required purpose or effect and found that the decisions were not related to age.

The part-time worker detriment claim was also dismissed. The October 2023 refusal was not less favourable treatment compared with either identified comparator at that time; Mr Olawole's January 2024 appointment followed an open competition in which Mrs Sharpe had not participated; and Mrs Sharpe had in fact been considered for the Operational role. As no less favourable treatment was established, the Tribunal did not need to determine the remaining Regulation 5 questions. All claims were dismissed and no monetary remedy was awarded.