Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Little v Richmond Pharmacology Ltd [2013] UKEAT 0490/12/2009
Little v Richmond Pharmacology Ltd [2013] UKEAT 0490/12/2009
Published on: 27/09/2013
Issues Covered: Discrimination
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Legal Island
Legal Island
Background

The employee in this case had been on maternity leave and wanted to go part-time upon her return to work. Accordingly, she submitted a flexible working request which would enable her to work from home two days a week, with remote email access on those days. At the outset, the employer refused her request, citing security concerns around remote access to emails. The employee resigned before an appeal could take place, but at the appeal the employer offered to try out the requested arrangement for a three month period.

The EAT held that the employer’s offer rectified any possible detriment that the claimant. Note, however, that the EAT was dubious that the employee had suffered any detriment at all for two reasons. Firstly, the original decision to refuse her flexible working application was made subject to a right of appeal and, secondly, the decision to allow a flexible working trial period was made prior to the date the employee had been due to resume work. http://bit.ly/1gWgUFh

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 27/09/2013