Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Indirect discriminationEmployment lawFlexible workingDiscrimination

Flexible working and indirect discrimination: a difficult balance

by Darren Newman 17 Aug 2016
by Darren Newman 17 Aug 2016 The employee was one of only 17 female train drivers out of a total of 559.
The employee was one of only 17 female train drivers out of a total of 559.

Consultant editor Darren Newman considers a recent indirect sex discrimination case that highlights the problems that an employer can face when it has to balance the working-pattern requests of individual employees against the needs of the workforce as a whole.

Indirect discrimination has never been an easy concept for the courts – or indeed the rest of us. The subject has not been made any easier by the fact that the definition itself has undergone several amendments over the years.

Flexible working and discrimination resources

Indirect discrimination

Decide the organisation’s stance on flexible working

Line manager briefing: requests for flexible working

Under the Equality Act 2010, what we now look for is a “provision, criterion or practice” that is applied to a group of employees, and that causes those who share a protected characteristic to suffer a “particular disadvantage” – with it causing the same disadvantage to the individual claimant.

The crucial difference between direct and indirect discrimination is the justification defence. Even if a provision, criterion or practice is shown to be indirectly discriminatory, the employer can defend a claim on the grounds that it is a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.

This causes a particular disadvantage to women because they are statistically more likely than men to have caring responsibilities that make it difficult for them to work long or unsocial hours.”

There are many legal difficulties with the definition of indirect discrimination, some of which are due to be addressed by the Supreme Court later this year. However, the employee relations issues that can be thrown up by an indirect discrimination claim can be just as tricky.

We tend to think of the “classic” example of indirect sex discrimination as being the refusal of a flexible working request. This causes a particular disadvantage to women because they are statistically more likely than men to have caring responsibilities that make it difficult for them to work long or unsocial hours.

In recent years, there has been increased emphasis on the business benefits of flexible working and it has undoubtedly become harder for employers to justify a requirement for employees to work full time or to a particular pattern.

In XC Trains Ltd v CD, the employee was one of only 17 women employed as a train driver by the employer, out of a total of 559 train drivers.

She was a full-time employee working 35 hours over a six-day week. The work pattern of a train driver can be fiendishly complicated, with work being required at weekends, early in the morning and late into the evening.

The employee had three young children and, when she separated from her husband in 2012, it became increasingly difficult for her to balance her work commitments and family responsibilities.

She made a number of requests for flexible working, which were refused – although several temporary accommodations were made for her in terms of the shifts that she was allocated.

One problem was that it was not possible for the employer to accommodate her needs without requiring the other – overwhelmingly male – drivers to agree to the change through the local bargaining framework.

Continue reading the full analysis on XpertHR

Avatar
Darren Newman

Darren Newman qualified as a barrister in 1990, and has represented both employers and employees at tribunal. He provides straightforward practical guidance on a wide range of employment law issues. Darren also works as a consultant editor for XpertHR.

previous post
Creating a “family feel”: supporting parents’ return to work
next post
Take part in our survey on labour turnover

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

You may also like

Working from home statistics show three-fold increase

20 May 2022

One in five employers planning ‘no jab no...

19 May 2022

Lack of flexibility pushes half of women to...

16 May 2022

MP demands timeline on carer’s leave legislation

13 May 2022

Employment tribunal: use of word ‘bald’ can amount...

13 May 2022

Rees-Mogg under fire from civil service leader over...

13 May 2022

Tesco to pioneer office space in local stores

13 May 2022

EHRC: Not all long Covid cases amount to...

10 May 2022

Queen’s Speech: absence of employment bill leaves organisations...

10 May 2022

Queen’s Speech: Exclusivity contracts for low-paid workers to...

9 May 2022
  • Apprenticeships are the solution to your recruitment problems PROMOTED | Apprenticeships have the pulling power...Read more
  • What it really means to be mentally fit PROMOTED | What is mental fitness...Read more
  • How music can help to ease anxiety at work PROMOTED | A lot has happened since March 2020, hasn’t it?...Read more
  • Why now is the time to plug the unhealthy gap PROMOTED | We’ve all heard the term ‘health is wealth’...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2022

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2022 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+