Claimant v Sage Housing Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim under section 80H(1)(b) ERA 1996 that the refusal of flexible working request to reduce office attendance from 3 days to 2 days was based on incorrect facts. The tribunal refused to strike out the claim, finding it required examination of evidence surrounding employer's decision that granting the request would have detrimental effect on quality or performance.
Claimant accepted at hearing that any race discrimination claim brought in relation to her flexible working request had been struck out and confirmed she does not seek to pursue it.
All other extant claims in both case numbers 2218518/2024 and 6011185/2024 apart from the section 80H(1)(b) ERA 1996 claim were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.
Facts
The claimant made two flexible working requests: one on 17 November 2023 (refused 29 November 2023) and another on 23 April 2024 (refused 21 May 2024). The second request sought to reduce working hours including lunch breaks and reduce office attendance from 3 days to 2 days per week. The employer refused citing detrimental impact on quality and performance, stating office attendance aids performance, collaboration, and team development. The claimant alleged the refusal was based on incorrect facts as she had met her targets and excelled when working 2 days in the office previously.
Decision
The tribunal refused to strike out the claimant's section 80H(1)(b) ERA 1996 claim regarding the refusal to reduce office attendance from 3 to 2 days per week. The tribunal found it required examination of the evidence surrounding the employer's decision that granting the request would have detrimental effects on quality or performance. All other claims were either struck out or dismissed on withdrawal.
Practical note
In flexible working refusal claims, tribunals will not strike out section 80H(1)(b) challenges where facts need to be examined to determine whether the employer's stated statutory reasons (quality/performance concerns) were genuinely based on correct facts.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2218518/2024
- Decision date
- 6 February 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No