On 12 December 2024, the Employment Tribunal ruled that debt recovery paralegal, Miss M Gil, was unsuccessful in her claims against her employer, Herrington Carmichael LLP over allegations of discrimination and harassment.
Background
Miss M Gil (“Gil”) was employed by law firm, Herrington Carmichael LLP (“HC”) from May 2021 to August 2023. Upon returning to work from maternity leave, Gil experienced changes in her working arrangements. She alleged these changes constituted pregnancy and maternity discrimination, indirect sex discrimination, harassment related to sex, and constructive unfair dismissal.
Tribunal Findings: Pregnancy and Maternity Discrimination
The tribunal found that the changes to Gil’s working arrangement were due to different managerial approaches. Before Gil went on maternity leave, her then-manager allowed Gil to work from home more frequently. During her maternity leave, a new manager joined HC, tasked with growing the dispute resolution department. The tribunal found that the new manager preferred employees to work in the office for supervision and support reasons. Therefore, the changes to Gil’s working arrangements were part of a broader restructuring within the firm and were not specifically targeted at her due to her maternity leave.
HC had also engaged in meaningful consultation with Gil regarding the changes and considered alternative arrangements for her.
Indirect Sex Discrimination
The tribunal considered if the requirement for all staff to attend the office puts women at a particular disadvantage compared to men (with regards to greater childcare responsibilities).
It was found that a requirement to work in the office rather than at home might not necessarily be more difficult for those with childcare responsibilities, depending on the locations of home, work and childcare and the distance between them.
Gil did not provide evidence to support why women or she herself were particularly impacted by the requirement to go into the office. In the absence of such evidence, the tribunal concluded that the new working arrangements did not disproportionately affect Gil as a woman and were applied uniformly across the department, not aimed at disadvantaging female employees.
Harassment Related to Sex
Gil alleged that a director of HC said that he wished he could “order a mass hysterectomy for all the young women in the office” because too many were getting pregnant. Gil was unable to provide evidence to support this claim of harassment, and the complaint, therefore, failed on its facts.
Constructive Unfair Dismissal
Gil alleged constructive unfair dismissal, claiming HC had breached the implied term of trust and confidence. While the tribunal noted HC could have handled situations more appropriately, their agile working policy made clear that it was non-contractual and that arrangements could be withdrawn or varied.
Therefore, the tribunal determined that the changes to Gil’s working conditions did not amount to a breach of contract that would justify her resignation.
Outcome
The tribunal dismissed all of Gil’s claims for the reasons set out above.
If you are an employer or employee affected by the above issue and want advice or support in connection with the same, or any employment law or HR issues more generally, please do not hesitate to contact us on 01206 239761.
