Homeworking carer dismissed in redundancy: indirect discrimination upheld
A Senior Lending Manager who cared for her disabled mother was unfairly dismissed by Nationwide Building Society during a redundancy exercise that required all staff to be office-based. The tribunal awarded £345,708 for unfair dismissal and indirect discrimination.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #homeworker-contract
- #associative-disability-discrimination
- #indirect-sex-discrimination
- #carer-responsibilities
- #redundancy-consultation
- #counter-proposal
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Senior Lending Manager on a homeworking contract from 1 December 2011 until dismissal on 15 January 2018.
- The respondent conducted a redundancy exercise (TEAL 2) requiring a reduction from 12 to 8 SLMs and decided all SLMs must be office-based.
- Six SLMs volunteered for redundancy before the claimant was dismissed, and at least one volunteer was persuaded to stay.
- The claimant's caring responsibilities for her disabled mother were known to the respondent.
- The claimant proposed to continue her homeworking arrangement, but the respondent did not consider this a valid counter-proposal.
- The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed because the respondent wanted to delete homeworking posts, not because of redundancy.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment with Nationwide Building Society as a Senior Lending Manager on a homeworking contract.
-
TEAL 1 redundancy exercise
First redundancy exercise in Commercial Lending team; claimant was not selected and was told her role was safe.
-
TEAL 2 redundancy exercise commenced
Decision to reduce SLMs from 12 to 8 and require all SLMs to be office-based; claimant's role placed at risk.
-
Claimant informed role at risk
Claimant received letter stating her role was at risk of redundancy and invited to consultation.
-
First consultation meeting
Claimant attended consultation meeting; she raised her caring responsibilities and proposed to continue homeworking.
-
Claimant submitted counter-proposal
Claimant emailed stating her counter-proposal was to continue existing homeworking arrangement.
-
Informal meeting with Mr Alexander
Meeting to discuss claimant's proposal; impasse as respondent insisted on office-based role.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed on grounds of redundancy; letter prepared on 21 December 2017.
-
Substantive hearing began
Five-day hearing at London Central Employment Tribunal.
-
Judgment issued
Tribunal found unfair dismissal, indirect associative disability discrimination, and indirect sex discrimination succeeded.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed and whether the requirement for all Senior Lending Managers to be office-based amounted to indirect associative disability discrimination, indirect sex discrimination, or indirect age discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, indirect associative disability discrimination, and indirect sex discrimination. It dismissed claims of direct associative disability discrimination and indirect age discrimination.
The key reasons were:
- The dismissal was not genuinely due to redundancy but because the respondent wanted to delete homeworking posts.
- The requirement for all SLMs to be office-based put the claimant, who had caring responsibilities for her disabled mother, at a substantial disadvantage compared to those without such responsibilities.
- The respondent failed to consider the claimant's counter-proposal to continue homeworking as a reasonable adjustment.
Compensation: £345,708 total (no breakdown provided in the facts).
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must consider whether a requirement to work from the office disproportionately impacts employees with caring responsibilities, especially if they have a homeworking contract.
- A genuine redundancy exercise does not exist if the employer's real aim is to eliminate a particular working arrangement rather than reduce headcount.
- Counter-proposals from employees at risk of redundancy must be properly considered; dismissing them out of hand can undermine the fairness of the process.
- Associative disability discrimination can arise when an employee is disadvantaged because of their caring responsibilities for a disabled person, even if they are not disabled themselves.
- Indirect sex discrimination may apply if a workplace requirement disproportionately affects women, who are statistically more likely to have primary caring responsibilities.
When redundancy masks discrimination
This case shows how a seemingly neutral redundancy exercise can hide discriminatory effects. The claimant, a Senior Lending Manager who had worked from home for six years, was told her role was at risk because Nationwide Building Society decided all SLMs must be office-based. She proposed to continue homeworking, but the society dismissed her counter-proposal without proper consideration.
The tribunal found that the real reason for her dismissal was not redundancy but the desire to eliminate homeworking posts. This meant the dismissal was automatically unfair. Furthermore, the requirement to be office-based placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage because she needed to work from home to care for her disabled mother. The society did not take reasonable steps to avoid that disadvantage, leading to findings of indirect associative disability discrimination and indirect sex discrimination (since women are more likely to be primary carers).
What the employer could have done differently
Nationwide could have avoided this outcome by genuinely considering the claimant's proposal to continue homeworking. A proper consultation would have explored whether her role could be performed remotely, as it had been for years. The society also failed to assess whether the office-based requirement was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. While supervision and support for junior staff may be a valid business need, the tribunal found that the society did not justify why homeworking could not continue for this particular employee.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that redundancy processes must be genuine and that employers cannot use restructuring as a cover for discriminatory practices. Employees with caring responsibilities, especially those who have successfully worked from home, should be given proper consideration if their role is at risk. The significant award of £345,708 reflects the seriousness of the discrimination and the loss suffered by the claimant. For anyone in a similar situation, the key takeaway is that a redundancy label does not automatically protect an employer from claims of unfair dismissal or discrimination.
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.
Former employee's claim dismissed after he told tribunal his wife's care was a higher priority
A tribunal dismissed a former employee's unfair dismissal claim after he failed to attend the final hearing, telling staff that caring for his wife after a car crash was more important than the case.
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.
Business consultant wins £5,130 for unpaid commission, holiday and notice pay but loses discrimination claim
A business consultant who was refused homeworking after training has won £5,130 for unpaid commission, holiday pay and notice pay, but her claim of associative disability discrimination was dismissed.