Cases2411962/2023

Claimant v British Telecommunications Plc

8 September 2025Before Employment Judge CooksonManchesterhybrid

Outcome

Partly successful£3,411

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(pregnancy)failed

The tribunal found that the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy or because the claimant was exercising or had exercised her right to maternity leave was not well-founded. The specific grounds for this conclusion are not detailed in the judgment summary provided.

Otherpartly succeeded

The tribunal found that the respondent failed to deal with the claimant's flexible working application in a reasonable manner under section 80F of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which succeeded. However, the complaint that the respondent had refused the application for a reason other than one of the statutory grounds in section 80G(1)(b) was not well-founded and failed.

Facts

The claimant, Miss A Lea, brought claims against her employer British Telecommunications PLC relating to pregnancy discrimination and the handling of a flexible working request. The claimant alleged unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy or maternity leave, and also complained that the respondent failed to properly deal with her flexible working application.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the pregnancy discrimination claim, finding it not well-founded. However, the tribunal upheld the claim that the respondent failed to deal with the flexible working application in a reasonable manner, awarding six weeks' pay (£3,411.36). The tribunal rejected the claim that the application was refused for non-statutory reasons.

Practical note

Employers must ensure flexible working applications are handled in a procedurally reasonable manner even if the substantive grounds for refusal are valid, as procedural failures alone can result in liability and a compensatory award.

Award breakdown

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.80FEmployment Rights Act 1996 s.80G(1)(b)

Case details

Case number
2411962/2023
Decision date
8 September 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
telecoms
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister