Claimant v Dedman Contract Services Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed because the respondent's decision makers genuinely concluded that her level of absence, lateness, mobile phone use and time spent on smoking breaks were unacceptable. The tribunal found none of these reasons had anything to do with her sex. The claimant herself recognised in cross-examination that if she was dismissed for these reasons, they would not be related to her sex.
Facts
The claimant was employed as an accounts manager for four months from July to November 2022, during which she was still in her six-month probationary period. She had absences totalling 10.5 days and was spoken to about lateness in October 2022. On 2 November 2022, she was dismissed at what was described as a probation review meeting, though the decision to dismiss had been made beforehand. The stated reasons were excessive absence (with a pattern of Mondays/Tuesdays), excessive mobile phone use, and excessive length of cigarette breaks.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the sex discrimination claim. The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed the claimant because of genuine concerns about her absence levels, lateness, mobile phone use and smoking breaks - none of which were related to her sex. The claimant herself acknowledged in cross-examination that if dismissed for these reasons, it would not be sex discrimination. The tribunal applied the Shamoon approach, focusing on why the claimant was treated as she was rather than detailed comparator analysis.
Practical note
A claimant must establish a link between the protected characteristic and the treatment complained of; genuine operational or conduct concerns that have nothing to do with sex will defeat a direct sex discrimination claim even where the claimant considers the dismissal procedurally unfair.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6000663/2023
- Decision date
- 12 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- accounts manager
- Service
- 4 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No