Fidessa PLC v Lancaster (Part Time Workers) [2017] UKEAT 0093_16_1601 (16 January 2017)

Fidessa PLC v Lancaster (Part Time Workers) [2017] UKEAT 0093_16_1601 (16 January 2017)

The Employment Tribunal was correct in its approach to regulation 4 of the Part-Time Workers Regulations, allowing comparison with the previous full-time position even where the claimant took annual leave after maternity leave. The Tribunal's finding of indirect sex discrimination regarding the requirement to work after 5.00pm was supported by evidence and justified the finding of unfair dismissal. However, the Tribunal erred by failing to make specific findings as to the claimant's subjective response to a manager's remark about her pregnancy, which was necessary for findings of direct discrimination and harassment. The appeal was allowed in part on those grounds, with those issues...

Citation
[2017] UKEAT 0093_16_1601
Parties
Claimant: Ms Lancaster; Respondent: Respondent (unnamed)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
16 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; findings on direct discrimination and harassment remitted to the same Employment Tribunal if practicable; appeal on indirect discrimination and unfair dismissal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Part Time Workers, Sex Discrimination, Harassment, Indirect Discrimination, Unfair Dismissal
Employment Law Discrimination Law Part Time Workers Sex Discrimination Harassment Indirect Discrimination Unfair Dismissal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Lancaster

Claimant

Respondent (unnamed)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in finding unfair dismissal tainted by direct and indirect sex discrimination
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in findings of direct sex discrimination and harassment
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in finding indirect sex discrimination regarding the requirement to work after 5.00pm

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal was correct in its approach to regulation 4 of the Part-Time Workers Regulations, allowing comparison with the previous full-time position even where the claimant took annual leave after maternity leave. The Tribunal's finding of indirect sex discrimination regarding the requirement to work after 5.00pm was supported by evidence and justified the finding of unfair dismissal. However, the Tribunal erred by failing to make specific findings as to the claimant's subjective response to a manager's remark about her pregnancy, which was necessary for findings of direct discrimination and harassment. The appeal was allowed in part on those grounds, with those issues...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; findings on direct discrimination and harassment remitted to the same Employment Tribunal if practicable; appeal on indirect discrimination and unfair dismissal dismissed.

Orders

  • Remit issues of direct sex discrimination and harassment to the same Employment Tribunal for reconsideration if practicable.
  • Unfair dismissal and indirect discrimination findings stand; appeal dismissed on those grounds.