Claimant v Chief Constable of Surrey Police

The claimant failed to prove that the requirement to work in the call centre put women in general at a particular disadvantage. There was no evidence of the proportions of men and women in the pool who could comply with the PCP, and the tribunal could not assume without evidence that working in the control centre was less financially viable for women generally. The claimant did not establish the prima facie case required under s.19(2)(b) Equality Act 2010.

The claimant was not dismissed and continued in the respondent's employment in a different role. Although the tribunal considered whether constructive unfair dismissal might apply, the claimant failed to show any fundamental breach of contract by the respondent. Without establishing a breach of contract, the claim could not succeed.

The tribunal found that the respondent dealt with the claimant's s.80F flexible working application in a reasonable manner under s.80G(1) ERA. The respondent was not required to offer a trial period when the arrangement was not acceptable long-term, and although the claimant requested data about administrative work, the respondent had reasonably considered the issue through discussions with managers and the absence of formal statistical reports was not unreasonable.

Withdrawn by claimant. Dismissed by judgment dated 5 March 2025.