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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #maternity-return
- #flexible-working-request
- #indirect-sex-discrimination
- #constructive-dismissal
- #incorrect-facts
- #childcare-commitments
Key facts
- The claimant worked as Heritage Project Manager for 28 hours per week over 4 days before maternity leave.
- She requested to return on 16 hours over 2 days or 24 hours over 3 days due to childcare.
- The respondent refused, citing inability to reorganise work and detrimental impact on quality.
- The refusal was based on incorrect facts about commuting time and hours requested.
- The claimant resigned after exhausting internal processes.
- The respondent continued to employ a male full-time maternity cover in the same role.
Timeline
-
Started employment
Claimant started as Part Time Project Assistant, Film Heritage, 21 hours per week.
-
Maternity cover hired
Justin Smith hired as full-time Heritage Project Manager (maternity cover).
-
Maternity leave started
Claimant began 12 months maternity leave.
-
Flexible working request
Claimant emailed request to reduce to 16 hours over 2 days, suggesting job share.
-
Formal request submitted
Claimant submitted completed flexible working form for 2 days per week.
-
Amended request
Claimant amended request to 16 hours over 2 days (8.45am-5.15pm with 30 min lunch).
-
Meeting with Mr Barry
Meeting held; Mr Barry said job share not possible and coordinator being made redundant.
-
Flexible working refusal
Mr Barry refused request, citing inability to reorganise and detrimental impact on quality.
-
Grievance lodged
Claimant lodged formal grievance against flexible working refusal.
-
Grievance appeal dismissed
Appeal outcome upheld original refusal, still based on incorrect facts.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned due to breach of trust and confidence.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the respondent's refusal of the claimant's flexible working request was based on incorrect facts, whether it amounted to indirect sex discrimination, and whether it constituted a constructive unfair dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed. The refusal of her flexible working request was based on incorrect facts about commuting time and hours requested, which breached the implied term of trust and confidence. The tribunal also upheld her claim for indirect sex discrimination, as the requirement to work 28 hours over 4 days put women at a disadvantage due to childcare commitments.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £2,540.00
- Compensatory award: £15,138.70
- Total: £17,678.70
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must ensure that decisions on flexible working requests are based on accurate facts, not assumptions or errors.
- Refusing a flexible working request without proper consideration of alternatives, such as job sharing, can lead to a finding of constructive dismissal.
- A requirement to work full-time or a set number of days may indirectly discriminate against women with childcare responsibilities.
- Continuing to employ a male full-time employee in the same role after refusing a female employee's flexible working request can strengthen a discrimination claim.
- Employees who resign after exhausting internal processes may still have a valid constructive dismissal claim if the employer's conduct was a fundamental breach of contract.
What this case shows
A heritage project manager with four years' service returned from maternity leave to find her flexible working request refused on grounds that turned out to be incorrect. The British Deaf Association claimed it could not reorganise work and that quality would suffer, but the tribunal found these reasons were based on factual errors about her commuting time and the hours she had requested. The refusal led her to resign, and the tribunal concluded she had been constructively unfairly dismissed.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have properly considered the claimant's request, including the possibility of a job share or reduced hours. Instead, it relied on incorrect information and failed to engage meaningfully. The tribunal noted that the respondent continued to employ a male full-time maternity cover in the same role, which undermined its argument that the role could not be done part-time.
Why this matters
This case highlights the importance of handling flexible working requests carefully, especially when employees return from maternity leave. Employers must base their decisions on accurate facts and consider alternatives. A refusal that is not properly reasoned can lead to claims of constructive dismissal and indirect sex discrimination, resulting in significant compensation awards.
Similar cases
Sarcastic 'thanks for popping in' comment not enough for constructive dismissal
A shift manager who resigned after her line manager's sarcastic comment and a refused flexible working request lost her constructive dismissal claim. The tribunal found she had affirmed the contract by continuing to work.
Head of Finance loses constructive dismissal claim after refusing return to office
A tribunal has ruled that a YMCA's request for a senior manager to return to blended working did not breach her contract, dismissing her claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
Practice manager with 29 years' service loses constructive dismissal claim over email about future pay
A practice manager who resigned after receiving an email mentioning a potential future pay reduction has lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found no repudiatory breach.
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.