Claimant/Appellant:
A Perkins 

Respondent:
Marston (Holdings) Ltd

EAT upholds appeal regarding finding of indirect sex discrimination citing that the Tribunal had looked at the case too focused on the claimant’s situation rather than how a group would be affected by the PCP.

The claimant was employed by the respondent since 2005.  She was employed as Head of Enforcement; Local Taxation and her place of work was noted as Helmshore.  She managed an administrative team and field agents. At the relevant time, the claimant had primary caring responsibilities for her two children, both under five.

In 2021, the respondent’s enforcement services were restructured. The claimant was advised that the intention was to create one centre based in Helmshore which the claimant would manage.  The claimant’s line manager changed in Summer 2021 and the claimant declined to attend face-to-face meetings in other centres across the country. She explained that she had childcare responsibilities and it was accepted that she could attend remotely.  In 2022, the claimant was told that she would have to travel to Epping to manage the team members there and there had been issues from the team in Epping about the lack of transparency around their roles. The claimant stated that if her role required travel then it was no longer suitable to her due to childcare responsibilities. The line manager then added the phrase ‘travel as when required’ in the job description for a Grade 3 Manager. He then stated that the failure to travel when required could lead to disciplinary action. This led to a grievance from the claimant.

The claimant stated that if she was to be terminated, she would prefer that it was down the route of redundancy. At a second meeting the line manager was unable to give specific examples of the barriers the lack of travel created but reiterated it was part of the company’s culture to travel to meetings. The claimant was subsequently given notice of her redundancy and left in May 2022.  Her role was subsequently given to another woman.

The claimant’s claim was of indirect sex discrimination arising out of the provision, criterion or practice that she had to travel significant distances which would put her at a disadvantage considering her childcare responsibilities. The claimant further claimed for unfair dismissal.  At first instance, the Tribunal upheld both claims and the respondent appealed to the EAT.

On the point of indirect sex discrimination, the EAT found that it was unclear from the Tribunal decision if it had approached the question of group disadvantage on the basis that the childcare element was intrinsic in the provision, criterion or policy or it was simply an obvious consequence of it. The Tribunal had also failed to properly engage with the application of the provision as a general rule rather it had looked at it more focused on the claimant’s particular setting.

On the issue of unfair dismissal, the Tribunal had appeared to accept that the claimant had accepted that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy. The Tribunal then considered that she should not be bound by that earlier statement and stated that she was not, in fact, made redundant and there was no fair reason for the dismissal. However, the respondent had understood that redundancy, as the reason for dismissal, was not in dispute and argued that it was unfair for the Tribunal to adopt the course without permitting the parties to make submissions on the point.  The EAT invited submissions from the parties on disposal.

This case demonstrates a key aspect relating to travel and the effect it could have on childcare responsibilities.  Whilst the Tribunal initially allowed the claim it was found by the EAT that there was too great a focus on the claimant’s individual situation rather than looking at the group when it came to indirect sex discrimination.  Additionally, for the dismissal the Tribunal had not invited submissions on the reason for the dismissal considering that the respondent was under the impression that the redundancy had been agreed.  It is likely that this case will be remitted and if so will be interesting to see the outcome especially on the basis of the indirect sex discrimination.

You can read the case in full here:
https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/marston-holdings-ltd-v-mrs-a-perkins-2025-eat-20