The Mail report that a female cabin crew manager has won her indirect sex discrimination case after Flybe refused to agree to a reduced pattern of working of 11 pre-arranged days a month so she could organise childcare. Before Emma Seville left work to have her baby, she worked full-time and could be rostered to work any 22 days in a month. Seville applied to return to work part-time, requesting a fixed pattern of 11 pre-arranged days a month so she could organise childcare.
Flybe told Seville she could only come back if she worked a flexible rota of any one of 11 days a month. Flybe’s justification was that a significant part of the workforce was already on fixed hours and they couldn’t get any more people ‘in that pot’ because it would have a detrimental effect on the business. Therefore, cabin crew needed to work fully flexible shifts. An ET upheld Seville’s indirect discrimination claim. The ET found that Flybe’s provision put female workers at a particular disadvantage compared to male employees and could not be justified as it had not been shown that it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
The case highlights the need for employers to assess whether a provision, criteria or practice (PCP) is inadvertently discriminatory and if it is, whether to abandon the PCP, or seek to justify it by showing: there is valid business aim, the PCP meets that need, there is no alternative way to achieve the business need and the benefits to the business outweigh the discriminatory effect.
Content Note
The aim is to provide summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. In particular, where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out full details of all the facts, the legal arguments presented by the parties and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links provided to access full details. If no link is provided contact us for further information. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
