indirect discrimination against working mother

[SamSam786R]

Dear all,i am concerned that my employers are pushing me out of the business as working there has become impossible. as primary childcare provider for my children i require a certain amount of flexibility to work. the job i do is comms and can be done remotely. despite this i will go into the office three days a week. however, HR have told me that i must do certain days where childcare is impossible and so i am scrambling each week to find someone to watch my kids after school. they have said that this poilcy applies to all employees and NO exceptions can be made. my manager has told me that a job like mine is not suitable for working mothers and HR have stated that if i can not work around my children i need to go part time. in tandem i have now been put on an informal pip for a spelling error. since then, every mistake is emailed to me and my manager will message me on teams with all capital letters asking why i made these mistakes and that i can no longer make any mistakes at work. obviously, this along with the lack of flexibility or understanding has put me under immense stress - just today i cried in the toilet for one hour and had a minor panic attack. it might seem like a small thing, but these small aggressive remarks and confrontational emails have taken a huge toll on me. futhermore, my childless colleagues have been given leeway for working hours and days due to relocations. on top of that my HR person has stated that i am not attending the office for my full hours despite him coming in after me and leaving before every week. i am also one of the few people who come into an office regularly. they have also said i have baby brain on many occasions and compared me to my male colleagues. sorry for making this so long and rambly, there are so many other things that they have said and done to me, im so tired and would LOVE to resign but i need to pay my bills and the job market is awful right now. advice on: a: how to survive and b: how to escalate this with employment tribunal. thank you

Not when used as a smokescreen for discrimination no.

I am delighted it’s as clear cut as you say and will take this forward to my SMT. Thank you. I’m surprised, because the advice we had was that it was not as clear cut. I’ll be sure to correct ACAS as well.

I think the poster is saying the way the op posts could be indicative of the fact she struggles with written communication. Possibly not, but considering thays what her pip is about, and some of the reason behind hee poor performance reviews, it could be an indicator there is an issue there.

however it is fairly irrelevant, the company can have a business case to deny flexible working, it is not automatically discriminatory to do so, she needs to provide further information on whether this is a company wide policy etc,

however the key point here is the company can say something as simple as they have a business case to deny, and feel work quality and performance falls if she works from home, for her, they can then show the poor performance appraisals, which is documented evidence.

I do think they are moving to termination due to performance, and I think if I was the op I’d be focusing on that, and not flexible working right now. If her errors in her written work are an issue and she’s on a pip there is no excuse for her boss having to repeatedly point out more errors, they should not be occurring.

the comments she has said he made are discriminatory, but unless there were witnesses, then it will be her word against his, he could deny it, and it could look like a poor employee making stuff up to try to force flexible working.

its unfortunate the flexible working issue is at the same time as the poor performance issue has come to a peak. But as said, if I was her id be focusing on perfoming well if she wants to save her job, which it seems she does.

No court case, be it civil or criminal is clear cut. It never has been. But the end result is clear.

But I am surprised you don't know that saying to somebody "you have baby brain", or "This isn't suited to a working mother" is 100% gaurantee for a well-founded ruling in a tribunal, and with significant compensation to follow.

You clearly didn't read what I wrote did you.

The Equality Act and Flexible working requests are two different things.

Oh dear.

You’ve repeated what I said they have to have a business case why they can’t accommodate it

you seem to be under the impression you can demand what you want and they have no choice

I’m talking about my specific situation. It’s great to know it’s so clear cut for women. Thank you.

Actually they don't.

Can they deny the legal request? Sure.

Can they break the law by doing so? Sure.

Will they pay the price for it in Court? 100%.

I’m confused.

I thought you said that every request from a woman for flexible working had to be accommodated under the EQ2010? Doesn’t it?

Why would they be breaking the law if they had a business reason

I thought that as long as there was a business reason a flexible working request didn’t have to be accommodated? Do the provisions of the equality act 2010 over write that?

I am so confused and im going to look stupid to acas and my SMT at this rate lol.

It isn't a business reason to tell somebody they have baby brain

It isn't a business reason to tell somebody that the role is not suited to a working mother

It isn't a business reason to deny a working from home request, when the role can be, and has been conducted from home and hold a defence of "that is our policy". A policy cannot be blanket that it puts those covered by the Equality Act at a detriment.

Yes it does.

Thank you so much. This is so helpful. So even where there is a legitimate business reason to deny a flexible working request, if that request comes from a woman then the provisions of the equality act 2010 override that business need and the flexible working request must be granted? Thank you.

Not every woman, simply for being a woman.

If her request for flexible working under the Equality Act is denied, her sex then becomes relevant, due to the protected characteristic.

Thank you this is so helpful for me as I’m trying to get guidance on a decision that the SMT have made with regards to reception cover and given that all of the receptionist currently are female than the provisions of the equality act 2010 overrule the business need to have reception cover and we are not able to insist that the member of staff covers reception as is in their contract of employment

thank you so much that’s why this form is so helpful and invaluable

It can still be denied for the reasons stated and on the acas website. She would need to prove discrimination, as such, others were given flexibility when she wasn’t as she was a working mother. And they appear to have the supporting documentation of historical poor appraisals on her poor performance. Whether she agrees with that or not, is a different case, and would not be sexual discrimination but constructive dismissal.

It does not over rule the business need. You’re being given false information. They just need to provide a business case.

But that’s not what the other poster said? They were very clear I asked them directly? The business need is overruled by the provisions of the equality act 2010?

Ahh we’re at cross purposes
as I said in one of my replies the comments are discriminatory
there not the smartest making comments like this
rather than say the job isn’t for mothers it should be this is the commitment we need off you not quoting the reason they think you can’t
again baby brain inappropriate/discriminatory

flexible working and wfh request rejected backed up with the appropriate business reason fine and legal not discrimination

as for them saying that’s there policy someone has written that policy and there will business reason behind it

It might be depending on the spelling mistake.

What is likely to be a cause of dismissal is how she reacts to criticism of her work.

I’m so confused, the business need is not overruled, maybe it’s a language thing,

I asked here @Thelankyone see what the pp replied?

acas said if there was a business reason that it was fine to deny the flexible working request but the pp said no because on the grounds of the person being a woman the provisions of the EA 2010 over wrote that ?

Ah yes ok yes you can deny either gender as long as you have a business case. Women are not protected here, you can’t deny for the sole reason they are a woman, but you can deny for business need.

So the pp is incorrect?