The claimant and a male comparator were allowed to work from home on certain days to accommodate childcare needs but the claimant had her right to work withdrawn. She was offered greater flexible hours but this did not satisfy her and she lodged a direct sex discrimination claim.

The tribunal did not accept the employers' reason for the change and found that the burden of proof requirements had reversed and that the employer could not show a non-discriminatory reason for the less favourable treatment. The employer appealed.

The EAT explained that evidence of unreasonable and less favourable treatment coupled with a difference in protected characteristic is not sufficient evidence in itself without ‘something more’ to reverse the burden of