Full-time work requirement indirectly discriminated against mother of young children
A term-time inclusion support worker who resigned after her employer refused her flexible working requests has won claims for indirect sex discrimination and constructive dismissal. She was awarded £45,961.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #childcare-disparity
- #full-time-requirement
- #constructive-dismissal
- #indirect-sex-discrimination
- #associative-disability-discrimination-dismissed
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an inclusion support worker from 9 January 2018.
- The role was advertised as full-time (37 hours per week, term-time only).
- The claimant had two primary-school-age children, one of whom was clinically extremely vulnerable.
- The claimant was granted temporary reduced hours of 25 per week until July 2021.
- The respondent required the claimant to return to full-time hours from September 2021.
- The claimant resigned on 12 September 2021 after her flexible working and job share requests were refused.
Timeline
-
Interview for inclusion support worker
The claimant attended an interview for the full-time post.
-
Job offer and childcare discussion
Leonie Rayner offered the claimant the job and discussed childcare arrangements.
-
Flexible working request
The claimant formally requested a reduction to 25 hours per week.
-
Temporary hours agreed
The respondent agreed to 25 hours per week until a review in July 2021.
-
Review meeting and ultimatum
The claimant was told she must return to full-time hours from September 2021.
-
Job share request refused
The respondent refused the claimant's job share request, citing training costs and service consistency.
-
Appeal hearing
The claimant appealed the decision; the appeal was rejected the same day.
-
Resignation
The claimant resigned, citing inability to work full-time due to childcare and mental health.
-
Liability hearing
The tribunal heard evidence over three days.
-
Liability judgment
The tribunal upheld claims for indirect sex discrimination and constructive dismissal, but dismissed associative disability discrimination.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the council's requirement to work full-time hours indirectly discriminated against the claimant as a woman because women disproportionately bear childcare responsibilities, and whether this breach of contract amounted to constructive unfair dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claims for indirect sex discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal. It found that the requirement to work full-time hours placed women at a particular disadvantage, as women are more likely to have primary childcare responsibilities. The council's stated aims—continuity of service, after-school meetings, training costs, and minimal remaining hours—were not sufficient to justify the requirement. The claimant's resignation in response to the refusal of her flexible working requests was a constructive dismissal.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £681.63
- Total compensation: £45,961.53
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should carefully consider flexible working requests from employees with childcare responsibilities, as a blanket refusal may constitute indirect sex discrimination.
- Business reasons for refusing flexible working must be objectively justified; general concerns about training costs or service continuity may not be enough.
- Employees who resign due to a fundamental breach of contract (e.g., refusal of reasonable flexible working) may have a claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
- Representing yourself at tribunal is possible, but having legal representation can help ensure all evidence is properly presented.
When a full-time requirement becomes discriminatory
This case highlights the tension between an employer's operational needs and an employee's childcare responsibilities. The claimant, an inclusion support worker, had two young children, one of whom was clinically extremely vulnerable. She was initially allowed to work 25 hours per week, but when the council insisted she return to full-time hours (37 hours per week) from September 2021, she faced an impossible choice: either find childcare that covered the longer hours or give up her job. Her requests for flexible working and a job share were refused, leading her to resign.
The tribunal found that the requirement to work full-time placed women at a particular disadvantage because women disproportionately bear the burden of childcare. The council's reasons for refusing flexibility—such as the need for continuity of service and the cost of training—were not sufficient to justify the discriminatory impact. The council could have explored alternatives like a job share or extended part-time hours, but instead gave the claimant an ultimatum.
What the council could have done differently
The council's handling of the claimant's flexible working request was rigid. Although it initially granted temporary reduced hours, it failed to properly consider a permanent arrangement. The tribunal noted that the council did not provide a clear legitimate aim for the full-time requirement, and its evidence about after-school meetings and training needs was not compelling. A more open-minded approach—such as trialling a job share or allowing a phased return—might have avoided the claim.
Why this matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that employers must take flexible working requests seriously, especially when they relate to childcare. The Equality Act 2010 prohibits indirect discrimination, and a requirement that disproportionately affects women will be unlawful unless it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. For employees, this case shows that resigning in response to a discriminatory requirement can lead to a successful constructive dismissal claim. However, it also underscores the importance of gathering evidence and, if possible, seeking legal advice—the claimant represented herself and still succeeded, but the process was challenging.
Similar cases
Dismissed after miscarriage and husband's death: employer failed to get medical evidence
An accounts manager who suffered a miscarriage and lost her husband in quick succession was unfairly dismissed by First Call Contract Services Limited. The tribunal awarded £72,948.30 for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and indirect sex discrimination.
Supermarket employee wins constructive dismissal after restructure during maternity leave
A supermarket employee was constructively dismissed and discriminated against after being consulted about a restructure while on maternity leave and then redeployed to a role that disadvantaged women. The tribunal awarded over £60,000.
Former police employee's constructive dismissal claim dismissed as out of time
A former police employee's claims of constructive unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment and indirect sex discrimination were dismissed after the tribunal found they were presented too late. She was also ordered to pay £3,672 in costs for causing two abortive hearings.
Flexible working refusal based on incorrect facts led to constructive dismissal for heritage project manager
A tribunal found that the British Deaf Association constructively dismissed a heritage project manager after refusing her flexible working request based on incorrect facts, awarding £17,678.70 in compensation.