Minibus driver loses sex discrimination claim over redundancy selection
A school minibus driver who claimed she was made redundant because of her sex has lost her case. The tribunal found no evidence of discrimination and noted she had not engaged with the consultation process.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- Mrs McLaughlin was employed as a minibus driver and midday meals assistant from January 2016 until 1 November 2020.
- The school made all drivers and midday assistants redundant due to the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting financial pressures.
- Mrs McLaughlin did not respond to the school's consultation letters or attend any meetings, citing a need for union representation.
- A male colleague, Mr Heneghan, was retained as a gate supervisor after engaging in the process.
- The tribunal found no evidence that Mrs McLaughlin's dismissal was because of her sex.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Mrs McLaughlin joined Gatehouse school as a minibus driver, later also working as a midday meals assistant.
-
Previous dismissal and reinstatement
Mrs McLaughlin was dismissed following an altercation but later reinstated.
-
First national lockdown
School closed to most pupils; Mrs McLaughlin and others furloughed.
-
Initial redundancy call
Headteacher Mrs Korbay called Mrs McLaughlin to inform her of potential redundancy.
-
Redundancy letter sent
Formal letter outlining business case and inviting consultation.
-
Follow-up email
Bursar sent email to Mrs McLaughlin, who did not see it immediately.
-
Phone call
Deputy Bursar called; Mrs McLaughlin said she needed union representation.
-
Dismissal letter
School issued dismissal letter due to lack of response.
-
Employment ended
Mrs McLaughlin's employment terminated by reason of redundancy.
-
Appeal meeting
Mrs McLaughlin attended appeal with union rep; raised comparator Mr Heneghan.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal and the school's failure to offer her an alternative role amounted to direct sex discrimination, comparing her treatment to that of a male colleague who was retained.
The outcome
The tribunal unanimously dismissed the claim of sex discrimination.
- The school made all minibus drivers and midday assistants redundant due to COVID-19 financial pressures.
- The claimant did not respond to consultation letters or attend meetings, citing a need for union representation.
- A male colleague was retained as a gate supervisor after engaging with the process, but the tribunal found no evidence that sex played any part in the decisions.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you have two years' service, always tick the unfair dismissal box on your claim form – you can pursue both discrimination and unfair dismissal together.
- Engaging with your employer's redundancy consultation process is crucial; failing to respond can weaken any later claim about unfair treatment.
- A comparator must be in materially similar circumstances – a male colleague who engaged with the process is not a valid comparator if you did not.
- Tribunals focus on the specific legal issues agreed at preliminary hearings; ensure you understand the scope of your claim early on.
A case that turned on process, not prejudice
This case shows how a redundancy dispute can become tangled when the employee focuses on discrimination rather than the fairness of the process. The claimant, a minibus driver and midday meals assistant with four years' service, was made redundant in November 2020 after the school restructured due to COVID-19. She claimed her dismissal was an act of sex discrimination, pointing to a male colleague who was kept on as a gate supervisor.
However, the tribunal found that the claimant had not engaged with the redundancy consultation at all. She received letters and phone calls but did not respond, saying she needed union representation. Meanwhile, the male colleague had actively participated in the process and was offered a different role that matched his skills. The tribunal concluded there was no evidence that sex influenced any decision – the difference in outcome was due to the claimant's failure to engage, not her gender.
What the school did right – and what the claimant could have done differently
The school followed a structured redundancy process, sending formal letters and attempting to contact the claimant multiple times. When she did not respond, they proceeded with dismissal. The tribunal noted that the school's actions were consistent and not motivated by discriminatory intent. For the claimant, the key missed opportunity was not adding an unfair dismissal claim. As the tribunal pointed out, she had the necessary service and could have challenged the procedural fairness of the redundancy without needing to prove discrimination. Her decision to pursue only a sex discrimination claim left her with a much harder case to win.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that discrimination claims require evidence of a protected characteristic playing a material part in the decision. Simply having a comparator who was treated differently is not enough – the circumstances must be genuinely comparable. It also highlights the importance of engaging with your employer during redundancy, even if you feel you need representation. Finally, it underscores a practical point: always consider adding an unfair dismissal claim if you have the qualifying service, as it gives the tribunal a broader basis to examine the fairness of what happened.
Similar cases
Claims dismissed after claimants fail to attend final hearing
Two former employees who brought claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination and redundancy had their cases thrown out after failing to attend the final hearing or provide any evidence.
Dismissed by text message during lockdown: a TUPE redundancy that went wrong
A graphic designer with 15 years' service was dismissed by text message during the first lockdown. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but rejected age discrimination claims.
Deputy Design Director loses redundancy and discrimination claims against Greenland UK
A deputy design director who brought claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and unlawful deduction from wages after being made redundant has lost all her claims at the London Central Employment Tribunal.
Shop worker's unfair dismissal claim fails after respondent's response struck out
A former shop worker's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed after the tribunal struck out the employer's response for failing to comply with case management directions for over two years.