Claimant v Apple (UK) Limited

The tribunal found that although the claimant was treated less favourably than male comparator Loic Gramaglia (who was allowed to perform a London-based role from Paris), the respondent provided a non-discriminatory explanation: the relative sizes of the business in France versus Spain. The tribunal accepted this was the genuine reason, not the claimant's sex.

The tribunal found the PCP (requiring London-based employees to attend the London office and not work fully remotely overseas) did put women at a disadvantage due to childcare responsibilities. The claimant established this disadvantage. However, the tribunal found the respondent's aims (minimising tax risk and meeting operational requirements) were legitimate and the PCP was a proportionate means of achieving the tax aim, though they had doubts about the operational requirement justification.

The tribunal found no fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The absence review meetings after 10 months were reasonable in context, particularly given the claimant had initially requested no direct contact. The tribunal found the claimant resigned because she was told the role remained London-based and she was unwilling to return to London, not because of any breach of contract.

The claim for wrongful dismissal was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant.

Claims under s80G and 80I ERA 1996 and Regulation 4 of the Flexible Working Regulations 2014 were not upheld. The tribunal had to determine whether the claimant made a valid statutory flexible working request and whether it was handled reasonably. The claims failed, though the detailed reasoning is not fully extracted in the provided text.