Hmmm, I want to be happy about this, I can't help but feel the crux of her argument is the employer wanting to change her terms and making that non negotiable after her flexible working request had already been agreed.
I don't like that the caring responsibilities and her being a woman are what the ruling is about because as much as people are 'not allowed' to discriminate when employing staff, in the real world you don't really find out who got the job you went for and the exact reason you didn't get it, even if you ask the employer could cite a different reason and I just worry, as a single parent that Mothers would be seen as not reliable and if their unreliability is protected then won't that fuck us over at recruitment stage? As much as it shouldn't be allowed to I think that may end up happening in some cases.
Also this is hardly progressive IMO:
Whilst things might have progressed somewhat in that men do now bear a greater proportion of childcaring responsibilities than they did decades ago, the position is still far from equal.
“The assumptions made and relied upon [by the appellant] … are still very much supported by the evidence presented to us of current disparities between men and women in relation to the burden of childcare.”
What does this do to equality in the workplace when the ruling is that inequality in the home is to be maneuvered around by employers? It surely pushes women back to the position of bringing in their pin money around the kids as and when and men are in a position to be earners?