In McBride v Capita Customer Management Limited, the employer ended M’s job share because it required the role to be performed on a full-time basis. The employer conceded that the requirement to work full-time and for the job to be held by a single person was indirectly discriminatory because it placed women at a particular disadvantage and M at that disadvantage. An ET upheld M’s indirect discrimination claim. It was accepted that the employer had a legitimate aim, i.e. to deliver maximum operational efficiency, service standards and effectiveness of delivery via a clear single point of contact over all core hours. However, the full-time requirement was not proportionate. As M had pointed out, what evidence did the employer have and what were the examples? The employer had not provided concrete evidence or reasoned and rational judgment to justify the role being performed on a full-time basis. It seemed instead that the rationale had been prepared to support the negative.

The updates are kindly provided by Simons Muirhead & Burton Law firm

This update provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and help judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links to access full details. If no link is provided, contact us for more information.  Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.