Is this discrimination?

[Daisychain185]

I am one of four senior leaders where I work, in the company structure we are all equal and directly beneath the boss who owns the company, and everyone else is less senior than us.

The boss wants to sell the company over the next 10 years through an employee share scheme, which he is offering to the four of us, where we would each get given 2-3% of the company a year. This is in exchange for us committing to working full time plus overtime which has been suggested will come to 50-60 hours a week.

However, I currently work 4 days a week (I have a toddler) and will be going on maternity leave for my second baby at the end of the year. He has said that unless I commit to the 50-60 hour weeks on my return, the scheme won't be open to me. This isn't something I want to commit to when I return from mat leave with 2 small children.

He is not open to me being given a proportionate percentage of shares to my colleagues based on the number of hours I can commit to, it's all or nothing.

Is this discrimination? Or is he within his rights to include or exclude whoever he wants based on whatever he wants?

I am a loyal and committed employee with high career ambitions, but I feel if this opportunity isn't open to me whilst working my current hours my future at the company is probably over.

It sounds like indirect discrimination, as a PP has commented. Makes no difference that the offer is open to her on the same terms, the fact that the offer is not open to anyone not working full-time and more is indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex, because women are more likely to have family responsibilities which preclude them from working such long hours.

It really isn’t indirect discrimination. The op can choose to work full time. She’s not even said of the others have kids.

itsnot discrimination as she’s not getting the same offer in different terms. She’s perfectly able to work full time, she just doesn’t fancy it.

Well it certainly sounds unfair! Women have to physically have babies, if it was your husband in the same role it wouldn't be questioned.

Op this sort of crap answer isn't helping you. Yes it's discrimination, if you want more info go and see an employment solicitor.

But she's not being denied due to physically having a baby, and she's not being denied due to going on maternity leave.

Look up the part time workers (prevention of less favourable treatment) regulations - this proposal looks to be a breach of them. Also potentially indirect sex discrimination.

I'm struggling to see any link to a characteristic hat would determine discrimination.

On the basis that he is setting the expectations of what the role will entail and you would each be expected to do the same, equally.

He seems to have set that he doesn't feel a lesser share option for you based on less hours is viable, and he's allowed to say that as the controller of the business.

He hasn't 'not offered it to you' because you are a woman, a mother, a part time worker, all grounds that would mount discrimination.

Lots of people ( not just women) face this difficult choice of work life balance if their career ambitions demand it.

It's your choice if you think you can make it work, and whether you want to.

I understand the points everyone has made which is why I'm torn as to whether it's discrimination (even if indirect).

There is another aspect to it though which I have just recalled - he said that because the scheme will start whilst I am on maternity leave, the company structure may change whilst I am away i.e. currently less senior employees may be promoted and the opportunity to become a shareholder opened up to them, so that when I return from maternity leave it may not be open to me any more. This does feel like discrimination?

Yes that would be I think.

edit, unless he made the offer with a timeline to decide before mat, that was the same for the other three

It really is.

I got the idea she was because she works less hours then the men due to parenting? Xx

he said that because the scheme will start whilst I am on maternity leave, the company structure may change whilst I am away i.e. currently less senior employees may be promoted and the opportunity to become a shareholder opened up to them, so that when I return from maternity leave it may not be open to me any more. This does feel like discrimination?

Are you seriously saying that you think he's discriminating against you if he makes decisions about the structure and ownership of his business while you're on maternity leave?!!! He's telling you now so you can make an informed choice. He's giving you the same opportunity that he's giving your peers. You can't seriously expect the owner of the company to do nothing while you're on maternity leave?! He just has to put his plans on ice because you're having a baby?! 🙄😂

This is a good example of why some companies are still reluctant to hire women of child-bearing age into senior roles.

It’s irrelevant why she works less hours, she’s not said if the men are parents. Working part time is not a right, it is not a prerequisite of being a mother, it is a choice.

He just has to put his plans on ice because you're having a baby?!
OP said that she goes on ML at the end of the year i.e. 6 months from now. She can't be very far along.
Don't you find it an amazing coincidence that this hare-brained scheme has suddenly come into being, with its inflexibility and rushed timetable? Complete with understudies.

I think that losing the opportunity to join the scheme due to maternity leave must be discrimination. Would you be getting paid for all the overtime?

Yes it would be, but that’s not what she said.

Total paranoia.🙄 He wants to gradually hand over ownership of the company to senior leadership. He's invited the OP to be one of the select few. It seems that she has several months (at least!!!) to decide if she wants in or not. He's hardly demanding an instant decision from her. He is fine with the OP taking maternity leave - but it isn't fine for the OP to expect him to leave the offer on the table for a year or maybe even longer(??!) while she has her baby and maternity leave and decides if she's willing to commit to full time work or not. That's downright ridiculous. It's a business, the world doesn't stop because the OP is pregnant.

From OPs post it sounded like boss was saying it might not be open to her even if she did agree to all the other terms.

I do get your point.

To clarify, I go on maternity at the end of October. The scheme starts in November for my 3 colleagues (interesting timing 🤔).

When I get back from maternity leave, the opportunity to be part of the scheme (if I sign up for the full time + overtime) may not still be open to me due to potential restructuring. Maybe this is fair enough? I was just asking for other people's thoughts.

The overtime wouldn't be paid, it would be in exchange of the 2-3% a year shares - having done the maths on this it doesn't seem worth it for hours worked vs return, but that's not the point of my post.

I agee - I think it could be indirect discrimination.

Whether it’s discrimination or not, (and I don’t think it is based on info given) there are easier and more tax effective ways to allow him to realise the value of his shareholding and get shares into the hands of a few high performing employees.

10 years is too long. A high percentage of MBOs fall apart within 5 years because the personal dynamics don’t work. In this case there will be tremendous pressure on the leadership team to produce the profits to fund the share distribution. During this time, the leadership team won’t have sufficient shareholding to have any voice in the company, and it’s likely dividends won’t be payable until the shares have been fully paid for. It’s not an attractive deal for any party.

I'm fairly sure the fact that women are more likely to be part-time with caring responsibilities is often a basis for indirect discrimination in employment cases. My law degree was a very long time ago though so maybe it's different these days.

The fact that most women are still primary care-givers might not sit well with our modern principles of equality, but it very much reflects reality and for that reason alone, I'm hope that women are offered robust protection from indirect discrimination.

Having said that, I would genuinely be interested to know what an employment solicitor would make of it.

This might help OP. https://www.gov.uk/part-time-worker-rights#:~:text=If%20a%20part%2Dtime%20worker's%20been%20treated%20less%20favourably&text=The%20request%20should%20be%20in,case%20to%20an%20employment%20tribunal.

But I'd consult an employment lawyer. I'm not one but on the face of it it looks like there are three issues (1) not letting you sign up in November because you're on maternity leave, (2) the planned restructure that might be in breach of your rights to return to the same/equivalent job (depending on exactly how long you're on maternity for) - that's sounding like there might be a plan to substantially change your role whilst you're off, and (3) your original question about an employment benefit not being offered to you because you're part time. You need specialist advice on what your rights are - it's most definitely not clear cut this isn't discrimination regardless of how strongly people are saying that, but it might not be. Someone with all the facts needs to review in detail.

@Lalalalalalalalalalalalala thanks, like you say I probably need specialist advice.
The reason he is not letting me sign up in November is because I would be unable to "pay" for my shares through overtime, as I'll be on mat leave.

You work part time and the others full time, if sounds like this is discrimination based on working part time hours.

id contact ACAS to see what they can enlighten you with.