In Little v Richmond Pharmacology Ltd, the EAT held that an employee did not suffer indirect sex discrimination where her request to work part time, although initially refused, was accepted on appeal before she returned from maternity leave.
Ms Little, a sales executive, submitted an application to work part time when she returned from maternity leave. Her request was refused on the basis that all sales executives were required to work full time, but this decision was subject to appeal. Ms Little appealed on 9 July 2010. However, on 19 July she resigned. The company asked her to reconsider and arranged for the appeal hearing to proceed on 22 July. At the appeal hearing, her request to work part time was granted on a trial basis. Ms Little nevertheless resigned and claimed indirect sex discrimination. Her claim was rejected by the Employment Tribunal.
The EAT agreed with the Tribunal that Ms Little had not suffered indirect sex discrimination since her complaint had been remedied on appeal. The decision to refuse her request had in effect been conditional, given that it was expressly stated to be subject to the right to appeal. In addition, Ms Little had not actually suffered a detriment because she had not been at work following the initial refusal of her request.
The circumstances of this case are relatively unusual, and the fact that Ms Little was on maternity leave at the time of the initial decision was key to the EAT's ruling. However, it shows that the courts regard internal appeals as an integral part of an employer's decision- making process. An appeal can therefore remedy a procedural defect or, as here, a potentially discriminatory decision.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
