New EAT cases on flexible hours and discrimination

POSTED BY TANIA RICHARDS | ARCHIVE | 23 JUNE 2021

| 1 min read

Two recent cases from the Employment Appeal Tribunal illustrate some potential pitfalls when women with childcare responsibilities are asked to move away from fixed working hours.

In order to establish a claim for indirect sex discrimination in these circumstances, the claimant needs to establish two things:

That the employer has applied a “provision, criterion or practice” (PCP) to a number of staff members, including the claimant; and
That the PCP puts the claimant and other women at a “particular disadvantage” when compared to male workers

If the claimant passes both these tests, the employer is required to justify the imposition of the PCP by showing that it is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.

To find out more about these two cases, head over to our sister blog, hrlawlive to read the full post here.

Our content explained

Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.

Posted by

Tania Richards

Senior Policy Advisor

Cambridge

New EAT cases on flexible hours and discrimination

Our content explained

Posted by

Tania Richards

Visitors

Existing clients

Staff

New EAT cases on flexible hours and discrimination

Our content explained

Posted by

Tania Richards

Tags

Popular tags

Subscribe

Visitors

Existing clients

Staff