Part-time worker made redundant while full-time colleagues kept: indirect sex discrimination
A senior events co-ordinator who returned from maternity leave to work part-time was selected for redundancy in a 'pool of one' while full-time colleagues doing the same job were retained. The tribunal found unfair dismissal, indirect sex discrimination and part-time worker detriment.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #part-time-worker
- #redundancy-pool-of-one
- #indirect-sex-discrimination
- #job-share-rejected
- #scoring-matrix-unfair
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Senior Events & Operations Co-Ordinator from 16 April 2016 until 18 October 2022.
- After returning from maternity leave on 3 May 2022, the claimant worked part-time (20 hours per week) and her senior duties were removed.
- In September 2022, the respondent decided to make redundancies due to financial reasons and placed the claimant in a pool of one.
- The claimant was selected for redundancy because she was part-time; her full-time colleagues doing the same job were not selected.
- The respondent rejected the claimant's job share proposal, citing part-time working as problematic.
- The appeal scoring matrix was found to be an ex post facto justification and unfairly applied.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for Heritage Venues Ltd as a Senior Events & Operations Co-Ordinator.
-
Maternity leave started
Claimant went on maternity leave (exact start date not given).
-
Return from maternity leave
Claimant returned to work part-time (20 hours per week) and was told her line management duties were removed.
-
Applied for promotion
Claimant applied for Events & Operations Manager role but was unsuccessful.
-
Board meeting decision
Respondent decided to make redundancies; four roles identified as at risk.
-
At risk letter
Claimant informed she was at risk of redundancy and invited to consultation.
-
Consultation meeting
Claimant proposed job share; respondent rejected it citing part-time working issues.
-
Final consultation
Claimant confirmed dismissal for redundancy; she appealed.
-
Dismissal effective
Claimant's employment terminated.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed; respondent conducted a retrospective scoring exercise.
-
Claim presented
Claimant filed claim for unfair dismissal, indirect sex discrimination, and part-time detriment.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for redundancy, whether the respondent indirectly discriminated against her on grounds of sex by using part-time status as a selection criterion, and whether she suffered a detriment for being a part-time worker.
The outcome
The tribunal found in favour of the claimant on all three complaints: unfair dismissal, indirect sex discrimination, and part-time worker detriment.
Key reasons:
- The claimant was placed in a 'pool of one' because she was part-time, while full-time colleagues doing the same job were not at risk.
- The respondent rejected the claimant's job share proposal without proper consideration, citing part-time working as problematic.
- The appeal scoring matrix was created retrospectively to justify the decision and was unfairly applied.
Compensation to be determined at a separate remedy hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must not treat part-time workers less favourably than full-time colleagues in redundancy selection, especially after maternity leave.
- Placing an employee in a 'pool of one' because of their part-time status is likely to be discriminatory if full-time colleagues doing the same role are not included.
- Rejecting a job share proposal without genuine consideration can be evidence of indirect sex discrimination.
- Creating a scoring matrix after the decision to justify a redundancy selection is likely to be seen as unfair and undermine the process.
When part-time status becomes a redundancy risk
This case highlights the risks employers face when redundancy processes disproportionately affect part-time workers, particularly those returning from maternity leave. The claimant, a Senior Events & Operations Co-Ordinator with six years' service, returned from maternity leave in May 2022 to work 20 hours per week. Within months, the respondent decided to make redundancies due to financial pressures. Despite the claimant and two full-time colleagues performing the same role, she was placed in a 'pool of one' – selected for redundancy because she was part-time.
What went wrong
The respondent's approach had several flaws. First, it failed to consider a genuine pool that included all employees doing similar work. Instead, it focused on the claimant's part-time hours as the basis for her selection. Second, when the claimant proposed a job share as an alternative, the respondent rejected it without proper exploration, citing part-time working as problematic. Third, when the claimant appealed, the respondent created a scoring matrix after the event to justify the decision – a clear sign of unfairness. The tribunal found that the real reason for the claimant's selection was her part-time status, which amounted to indirect sex discrimination because women are more likely to work part-time after having children.
What this means for similar claims
For employees, this case shows that redundancy selection based on part-time status can be challenged as discriminatory, especially when linked to maternity leave. Employers must ensure that redundancy pools are drawn fairly and that part-time workers are not singled out. Job share proposals should be considered genuinely, and any selection criteria must be objective and applied consistently. The outcome also reinforces that a 'pool of one' is not automatically unfair, but it will be scrutinised closely if it appears to target a protected characteristic.
Similar cases
Sexual harassment claims survive strike-out but discrimination and monetary claims fail
A former business service consultant's direct sex discrimination and bonus claims were struck out, but her sexual harassment and harassment related to sex claims will proceed to a final hearing.
Senior hairdresser with long COVID wins constructive dismissal case over part-time return refusal
A senior hairdresser with 12 years' service who resigned after her employer refused her GP-recommended phased return of two days a week has been awarded £13,699 for constructive unfair dismissal and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Part-time worker's constructive dismissal claim fails: tribunal rejects less favourable treatment allegations
A former employee who resigned and claimed constructive dismissal over part-time worker rights and national minimum wage issues has had all her claims dismissed by an employment tribunal.
Part-time scheduler's constructive dismissal claim against Medway NHS Trust fails
A part-time endoscopy scheduler with 9 years' service lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim after the tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract by Medway NHS Foundation Trust.