Failure to address menopause amounted to sex discrimination

In Merchant v British Telecommunications plc a tribunal held that direct sex discrimination had occurred when an employer had failed to treat an employee’s menopause in the same way as other medical conditions

In Merchant v British Telecommunications plc a tribunal held that direct sex discrimination had occurred when an employer had failed to treat an employee’s menopause in the same way as other medical conditions when applying its performance management policy.

The facts

Ms Merchant had been the subject of BT’s underperformance procedure on and off for a number of years and culminated in a final warning being issued. When the problems continued, a process was commenced to determine whether Ms Merchant should be offered alternative employment or be dismissed. At a meeting to discuss the issue Ms Merchant presented a letter from her GP which said that the menopause was causing her to suffer from a number of health problems which can affect her level of concentration at times and she referred to her menopause several times during the discussion. The manager decided not to investigate her medical condition, although BT’s performance management policy clearly stated that managers must find out whether the underperformance was being caused by health factors. He dismissed Ms Merchant for incapability, stating that it was difficult to assess if the menopause did impact on performance.

The judgment

A tribunal upheld Ms Merchant’s claim for unfair dismissal and direct sex discrimination. The manager had failed to investigate the possible impact of the menopause, the reason being, according to his evidence, that his wife and his HR adviser had both been through the menopause and so he could make a judgment on the effect on Ms Merchant’s performance and the impact on her ability to concentrate. This failure was a clear breach of BT’s own performance management policy could only be explained by the fact that he did not take menopause, a strictly female condition, seriously as a medical condition and that he would never have adopted “this bizarre and irrational approach with other non-female-related conditions”, in circumstances where it is self-evident that all women will experience their menopause in different ways and with differing symptoms. Therefore, the failure to refer the claimant for medical investigation, after being informed of her menopause, before taking the decision to dismiss, was direct sex discrimination as a man with ill-health in comparable underperforming circumstances would not have been treated in the same way.

Implications

The case demonstrates not only the need to follow a company’s own policies and procedures ‘to the letter’, but also the need to ensure, in particular, that further medical investigation takes place where a medical condition is gender specific. The appellate courts have been crystal-clear that no action should be considered in ill-health capability situations until the ‘true medical position’ has been established. Here there was an even greater onus on the manager to do so when the employee presented him with a letter from her GP.

Read more

Latest News

Read More

The real business of giving back

31 July 2025

Workforce Planning

31 July 2025

Dmitry Zaytsev, founder of Dandelion Civilization, argues that HR should play a bigger role in shaping how education prepares young people for work. If we...

Leadership

29 July 2025

Leadership can feel lonely at times, but it shouldn’t. Have a little empathy for yourself and ask for help when you need it. Now more...

Newsletter

Receive the latest HR news and strategic content

Please note, as per the GDPR Legislation, we need to ensure you are ‘Opted In’ to receive updates from ‘theHRDIRECTOR’. We will NEVER sell, rent, share or give away your data to third parties. We only use it to send information about our products and updates within the HR space To see our Privacy Policy – click here

Latest HR Jobs

Queen Mary University of London – IT Services DirectorateSalary: £54,617 to £60,901 per annum This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered.

University of Sussex – Human Resources Salary: £25,733 to £29,179. Grade 4, per annum, pro rata if part time This provides summary information and comment

UCL – Chemistry Department / Faculty of Mathematical & Physical SciencesSalary: £54,172 to £63,752 This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered.

University of Oxford – Department of PsychiatrySalary: £31,459 to £36,616 (discretionary range to £39,749) per annum. Grade 5 This provides summary information and comment on

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE