Indirect sex discrimination claim allowed: junior employee dismissed after relationship breakdown
A former sales manager has been allowed to amend her claim to include indirect sex discrimination, arguing that her employer's practice of dismissing the more junior employee in a relationship breakdown disproportionately affects women.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #indirect-sex-discrimination
- #amendment
- #relationship-breakdown
- #dismissal-of-junior-employee
- #pcp
Key facts
- The claimant was engaged to a director of the respondent.
- The relationship ended after 9 years.
- Three weeks after the relationship ended, the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct.
- The claimant was the only female sales manager; male employees were not dismissed for similar conduct.
- The respondent allegedly applied a PCP of dismissing the more junior employee in a relationship breakdown.
- The claimant applied to amend her claim to include indirect sex discrimination.
Timeline
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented her claim to the tribunal, initially unrepresented.
-
Notice of preliminary hearing
The claimant was notified of the preliminary hearing scheduled for 8 December 2022.
-
Legal advice sought
The claimant sought legal advice approximately one month before the preliminary hearing.
-
Preliminary hearing and amendment application
At the case management preliminary hearing, the claimant applied to amend her claim to include indirect sex discrimination. The application was allowed.
-
Judgment sent to parties
The judgment was sent to the parties.
-
Final hearing scheduled
The final hearing is scheduled to take place from 24 to 26 April 2023.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the former employee could amend her claim to add indirect sex discrimination, specifically that the employer applied a practice of dismissing the more junior employee in a relationship breakdown, which allegedly puts women at a disadvantage.
The outcome
The tribunal granted the claimant's application to amend her claim to include indirect sex discrimination.
Key reasons:
- The claimant, who was initially unrepresented, had only recently obtained legal advice and made the application at the first opportunity.
- The amendment was based on facts already in the original claim, such as the relationship breakdown and dismissal, but required a new legal characterisation.
- The respondent would not be significantly prejudiced as the final hearing was still several months away and the same evidence would likely be relevant.
No compensation was awarded at this stage as the amendment was procedural; the final hearing is scheduled for April 2023.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are unrepresented when bringing a claim, seek legal advice as soon as possible to ensure all potential claims are included from the start.
- An amendment to add a new legal claim may be allowed even if the deadline has passed, especially if the underlying facts were already pleaded.
- Employers should be aware that a practice of dismissing the more junior employee in a relationship breakdown could amount to indirect sex discrimination if it disproportionately affects women.
When a relationship breakdown leads to dismissal
The case involves a former sales manager who was dismissed for gross misconduct just three weeks after ending a nine-year relationship with a director of the company. She was the only female sales manager, and she alleged that male employees had not been dismissed for similar conduct. Initially representing herself, she later instructed a solicitor who sought to add a claim of indirect sex discrimination.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal allowed the amendment, rejecting the employer's argument that the application was made too late. The judge noted that the claimant had only recently obtained legal advice and that the core facts were already in the original claim. The amendment was not a complete change of case but a re-labelling of existing facts to fit a legal framework. The final hearing was still months away, so the employer would not be unfairly disadvantaged.
Why this matters
This case highlights the importance of early legal advice for claimants who may not be aware of the full range of discrimination claims available. It also serves as a warning to employers: a policy or practice of dismissing the more junior employee in a relationship breakdown could be challenged as indirectly discriminatory if it has a disproportionate impact on women. The outcome of the final hearing will determine whether the claimant succeeds on the merits.
Similar cases
Site Manager with 8 months' service loses unfair dismissal claim
A site manager who was dismissed after just eight months had his unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of qualifying service. His race discrimination claims were allowed to proceed but subject to a £100 deposit order.
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.
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.
Partially granted amendment to add details to reasonable adjustments claim, but new sex discrimination claims refused
A former employee was allowed to amend her claim to add details to a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim, but her attempt to add new claims of direct sex discrimination and harassment was refused by the tribunal.