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

If the pp is saying women it is illegal to deny a woman flexible working then yes, they are incorrect. As said by many on this thread, and I posted the acas link.

you can’t deny someone and say simply no we don’t offer this to women, that is not a business need and is discrimination, but you can deny anyone male or female, for the reasons listed in the acas guide,

edit to add the onky thing mandatory is they need to review it, it’s all in the acs guide.

They have to make the business case, not just say that they've got one.

For simplicity here it is.

Employers must agree to a flexible working request unless there is a genuine business reason not to. A decision to reject a request must be for one or more of the following business reasons which are set out in the Employment Rights Act 1996:

• the burden of additional costs
• an inability to reorganise work amongst existing staff
• an inability to recruit additional staff
• a detrimental impact on quality
• a detrimental impact on performance
• a detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand
• insufficient work available for the periods the employee proposes to work
• planned structural changes to the employer's business

when they refuse they must ensure it is not discriminatory, so consider do they allow the men to have that flexible working. They can deny as long as it is not for a discriminatory reason, ie you can’t do it as your a woman, or you’re disabled, or Buddhist,

10. In handling a request, and any information that the employee discloses as part of that request, employers must not discriminate unlawfully against the employee in relation to any of the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010. The protected characteristics are:

• age
• disability
• gender reassignment
• marriage and civil partnership
• pregnancy and maternity
• race
• religion or belief
• sex
• sexual orientation

Yes and further to this:

By law, indirect discrimination is when a working practice, policy or rule is the same for everyone in a group, and:

• it would put people who share a protected characteristic at a disadvantage
• it puts someone personally at a disadvantage
• the employer cannot justify the course of action

An employer might need to make certain decisions that lead to indirect discrimination. This may be legal if there is 'objective justification'.
Under the law, there can be objective justification if an employer can prove both of the following:

• there's a 'legitimate aim', such as a genuine business need or a health and safety need
• the discrimination is 'proportionate, appropriate and necessary' – this means the legitimate aim is more important than any discriminatory effect

So in this case, it’s likely that insisting on set working days in the office for a comms role is not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and therefore indirect discrimination.

Kindly, your choice to live a really impractical distance from your work is on you.

Covid gave people this idea they could choose to live hours from work and it's in these scenarios you see why actually you do need to live a sensible distance from your work location.

Where I work we no longer interview people who live more than an hour away who don't intend to move closer, because it's caused so many issues like this.

Kindly, the commuter belt massively predates Covid. We can’t all afford to live in city centres. It’s not impractical as thousands of commuters demonstrate every day.

If you choose to limit your pool of staff by an arbitrary distance then that is on you.

Kindly, @Q2C4 , an hour isn't an arbitrary distance. An hour's commute before and after an 8-hour day affects the work-life balance.

I chose to live somewhere where I could commute to various towns and cities within an hour.

Oh that’s a reach, you twisted yourself in knots there to try to make out it was indirect discrimination, when it’s not your job at risk nor you paying legal fees for something highly unlikely to succeed.

Oh sweetheart, crying in the toilet for an hour and having panic attacks is not a small thing, that's your body telling you this situation is serious. What you're describing is textbook discrimination, "not suitable for working mothers", "baby brain" comments, flexibility given to childless colleagues but not you, and an informal PIP triggered by a spelling error right after you asked for adjustments? That's a pattern, not a coincidence.
For surviving right now, see your GP urgently and be honest about the panic attacks and stress, they can sign you off if needed and it creates a medical record. Document absolutely everything with dates and save copies somewhere safe outside work systems.
For escalating, contact ACAS today for free advice as this has employment tribunal potential written all over it, sex discrimination, indirect discrimination against parents, and possible constructive dismissal if they're making your role unworkable. The "no exceptions" line doesn't hold up if exceptions are being made for others.
You're not being dramatic love, you're being pushed out and you have rights. Please look after yourself first.

@PleasantPedantif an hour door to door is your cut off, how does that apply to changes in service? Train strikes? Traffic jams? Road closures? To get a journey time of one hour door to door in London via public transport effectively limits you to about half an hour on a train. The house prices reflect this. I live one hour by train from London but public transport speeds from transport hubs to my office once I’m actually in London adds half that again.

Work life balance is likely to be more disrupted by presenteeism policies than a long commute twice a week, with WFH on the rest of the days.

Q2c4 you said your commute is 2hours door to door
That's not 'commuter belt'
Thats 'moved somewhere way cheaper when wfh came in and hoped they wouldn't make me go to the office much'
Its never been the norm to live 2 hours from where you work!!!

That absolutely is commuter belt. I’ve lived in a commuter town for over 20 years, well before Covid hit. I used to commute 5 days a week, as many others do from where I live. There are many many people who commute London to Brighton which is much further!

@Q2C4 , it's about an hour.
To give examples of places:
Oxford city centre (60 mins door-to-door train), Canary Wharf (if I got the right train about 60 mins door-to-door), Basingstoke (50 mins car) etc.

Sometimes there are roadworks, diversions or delays. I take those in my stride. If it was a permanent change in service, I'd deal with it then.

A bit of flexibility can make a big difference to travel time. Some companies allow a 10-18:30 or 8-16:30 working day, which can drastically reduce the commuting time.

ETA: The door-to-door times are from my front door to the office building.
Another factor is car parking at the office. I try to work places where there is a staff car park if I am driving.

It’s not a reach, it’s the law, I know because I’ve been through it myself. It has succeeded, look at the Dobson case for a related example and there are others too.

Bizzare how some are so insistent on denying working mums have any rights even in the face of facts. It makes me wonder why these people hate women so much, can only assume it’s jealousy from the older generation and they had to suffer so why shouldn’t we.

Basically OP how dare you! How dare you ask for any accommodations as a working mum. You need to either quit your job and rely on a man or benefits, for which society will also continue to bash you, or pay more than your salary for extortionate childcare just so you can be a bottom on a seat because a multi millionaire male shareholder said so.

The Equality Act doesn’t override the business needs. It actually supports employers who have tried to make reasonable adjustment but failed because the employee cannot be reasonably be accommodated for legitimate operational purposes. The key word is reasonable here.

Out of interest, what would be the position if an employee wanted to work from home and was able to show that others doing the same job were allowed to work from home, but the employer reasonably believed (with evidence) that this employee’s performance was poorer/substandard when they were not under direct supervision in the office. Would the employer be able to refuse the flexible working application?

and would the outcome be different if they were a working mother?

Dobson lost her case.

It's an example of an employer successfully demonstrating that their policy was a "proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim".

OP please contact acas, maternity alliance or a lawyer.

Again, clueless.

The burden of proof is not on the employee/claimant to prove discrimination.

The legal burden of proof lies with the Respondent/employer to prove they didn't discriminate under employment law.

Reasonable adjustments are only for disability. To defend an indirect discrimination claim the employer needs to show that their policy/actions are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The burden shifts once the claimant makes out a prima facie case of discrimination

But precisely.

The claimant needs to present her claim.

It isn't for her to endlessly prove from that point onwards.

Which would be almost impossible

The comments alone made to the OP is a defence without any merit, and an unreasonble defence at that.

The Equality Act is not in place to support employers. It is in place to provide the employee with claims.

Where the f do you get your information from?🙄

Disability Support worker for over twenty years, and have worked with the EA since its introduction. I was answering a poster with regard to operational needs. Where reasonable accommodation is not possible for genuine reasons, the Act supports employers in letting the employee go if there is no other reasonable alternative. In other words it’s not illegal for them to do so. You’re very rude.