In McBride v Capita Customer Management Limited, the employer ended M’s job share because it required the role to be performed on a full-time basis. The employer conceded that the requirement to work full-time and for the job to be held by a single person was indirectly discriminatory because it placed women at a particular disadvantage and M at that disadvantage. An ET upheld M’s indirect discrimination claim. It was accepted that the employer had a legitimate aim, i.e. to deliver maximum operational efficiency, service standards and effectiveness of delivery via a clear single point of contact over all core hours. However, the full-time requirement was not proportionate. As M had pointed out, what evidence did the employer have and what were the examples? The employer had not provided concrete evidence or reasoned and rational judgment to justify the role being performed on a full-time basis. It seemed instead that the rationale had been prepared to support the negative.
Ending job share was indirect discrimination as not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
Article by: Makbool Javaid |