Homeworking

A refusal to allow home working can lead to sex discrimination. Here are two good examples:

• in Fidessa PLC v Lancaster [2017] UKEAT/0093/16/LA, the EAT agreed with a tribunal’s conclusion that including a requirement in a job profile for work to be done on site after 5pm when there was evidence that the work could just as easily be done at home was indirect sex discrimination that could not be justified; and

• in Lockwood v Crawley Warren Group [2000] UKEAT/1176/99, Ms Lockwood, an account executive/technician asked to work from home after her maternity leave ended when her child care arrangements unexpectedly fell through. Even though she was prepared to bear the set up costs of working from home, her employer refused, instead giving her two weeks’ leave to sort out her childcare difficulties, at the end of which she was to return to work full-time. Lockwood resigned and brought a claim for indirect sex discrimination. The EAT ruled that the employer indirectly discriminated against Lockwood by insisting she work full-time, saying that “a request to work from home at one’s own expense is … similar to a request to work part-time”. The case was sent back to the tribunal to decide whether the employer’s refusal could be justified in this case.