Claimant v Cabinet Office

The tribunal found that while there was some misinformation about role continuity and a failure to obtain Civil Service Commissioner approval, the reason was administrative oversight and misunderstanding of the STFTA contract, not the claimant's maternity leave. The maternity leave was the occasion, not the reason for the detrimental treatment.

The tribunal concluded the principal reason for dismissal was not redundancy but that it was unlawful to continue employing the claimant beyond two years without Civil Service Commission approval. The reason was not connected to the claimant's pregnancy, childbirth or maternity leave, but the statutory two-year restriction on Short Term Fixed Term Appointments.

The claim was based on the respondent denying a flexible working request. However, the tribunal found no formal flexible working request was ever made nor denied, so the factual basis for the claim was not established.

The claimant did not establish that the respondent had a practice of failing to consider flexible working requests. She never formally made such a request, and there was no evidence of a general practice affecting others.

The tribunal found no feature of the case from which it could detect that the claimant's sex was a factor in her treatment, nor facts from which such an inference could be drawn. The reason for dismissal was the two-year limit, not the claimant's sex.

While the tribunal accepted the two-year limit PCP existed and that female employees are more likely to be on extended parental leave, the claimant did not prove group disadvantage. The PCP should not generally cause disadvantage if employer and employee are aware of the two-year limit. Even if group disadvantage existed, the tribunal found compliance with legislation was a legitimate aim and termination was a proportionate means of achieving it.