Single parent allowed to add sex discrimination claim after flexible working refusal

What this case shows

This case highlights how a claimant who initially filed a claim without a specific legal label can later add that label if the underlying facts are already present. The former employee, a single parent, had requested flexible hours due to home-schooling pressures during the pandemic. When her employer refused, she brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal, race and disability discrimination, but did not initially mention sex discrimination. However, her chronology included details about her childcare responsibilities and the refusal of flexible working.

The tribunal allowed her to amend her claim to include indirect sex discrimination, treating it as a relabelling exercise. The judge noted that the 'childcare disparity' is so well-known that it can be judicially noticed, meaning the claimant did not need to explicitly state that women are disproportionately affected.

What the employer could have done differently

The London Borough of Bexley could have avoided this by granting the flexible working request or by engaging more constructively. Instead, they offered only a temporary two-week arrangement, which did not address the claimant's ongoing needs. Employers facing similar requests should consider whether a refusal might disproportionately impact women with childcare responsibilities, especially during exceptional circumstances like school closures.

Why this matters

For employees, this case is a reminder to include all relevant facts in your initial claim, even if you are unsure of the legal categories. For employers, it underscores that refusing flexible working to a single parent during a pandemic can lead to a sex discrimination claim, even if the employee initially frames it differently. The decision also shows that tribunals will take a pragmatic approach to amendments where the respondent has been aware of the facts from the outset.