Some case law examples involving flexible working

In Shaw v CCL Ltd UKEAT/0512/06, the EAT held that a refusal to allow part-time work was direct and indirect sex discrimination and a breach of contract, entitling the employee to resign and claim constructive dismissal.

In Mitchell v David Evans Agricultural Ltd UKEAT/0083/06, the EAT said that when deciding whether an employer was justified in refusing a request to work part-time, the tribunal should have undertaken a proper analysis of the needs of the business, and considered whether the need for a full-time worker was “reasonably necessary”.

In Hardys & Hansons plc v Lax [2005] IRLR 726, the Court of Appeal held that a refusal to allow an employee to work on a job-share basis was sex discrimination and could not be justified when the employer had failed to show that the job could not be done on that basis.

In Little v Richmond Pharmacology [2013] UKEAT 0490/12/2009, a sales executive who was planning her return from maternity leave asked to work flexibly, partly at home with remote access and partly office-based. Her request was rejected by a manager who told her that sales executives can never work part-time. However, before her return date, a senior manager reversed the decision and agreed to a three month trial of her suggested work pattern. Instead, Little resigned and claimed indirect sex discrimination. Her claim failed because since the employer reversed its decision before her return date, Little suffered no disadvantage.