Sales manager awarded £26,000 after sex discrimination over flexible working requests
A sales manager who was told his wife should care for their sick child and was forced to work while on furlough has been awarded over £26,000 by an employment tribunal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a sales manager from 29 July 2019 to 9 October 2020.
- The claimant was required to work during furlough in March-June 2020 but was only paid 80% of his salary.
- The second respondent refused the claimant's requests for flexible working for childcare reasons, making remarks about the claimant being the 'main breadwinner'.
- The second respondent sent abusive messages and threatened to remove the claimant's company car.
- The claimant resigned on 2 October 2020 citing a breakdown in trust and confidence.
- The tribunal found the claimant made a protected disclosure about working on furlough but the second respondent was unaware of it.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a sales manager for ARH UK Limited.
-
First flexible working request
Claimant asked for time off to care for his sick son; second respondent said his wife should do it.
-
Furlough started
Claimant placed on furlough due to COVID-19 but required to work.
-
Protected disclosure
Claimant told managing director Mr Robinson that he should not be working while on furlough.
-
Flexible working request refused
Claimant asked to work from home for childcare; second respondent refused, saying his wife should do it.
-
Abusive messages began
Second respondent sent disparaging texts, including calling claimant a 'lazy arse'.
-
Car threat and targets
Second respondent threatened to remove claimant's car and imposed sales targets.
-
Further abusive text
Second respondent texted claimant to 'work his bollocks off'.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned by email, citing breach of mutual trust and confidence.
-
Final hearing
Two-day hearing at Manchester Employment Tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's refusal of flexible working requests for childcare reasons, and comments about the claimant being the 'main breadwinner', constituted sex discrimination, and whether requiring the claimant to work during furlough without full pay amounted to unauthorised deductions from wages.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaints of sex discrimination and unauthorised deductions, but dismissed his protected disclosure detriment claim.
- Sex discrimination: £9,900 for injury to feelings plus £2,376 interest, jointly and severally against both respondents.
- Unauthorised deductions: £13,830 from the first respondent, comprising:
- £6,100 unpaid bonus
- £3,500 unpaid wages during furlough
- £4,230 accrued holiday pay
Lessons & takeaways
- Refusing a flexible working request on the basis of gender stereotypes, such as assuming a man is the 'main breadwinner', can amount to direct sex discrimination.
- Requiring employees to work while on furlough but only paying 80% of their salary is likely to be an unauthorised deduction from wages.
- Employers should consider flexible working requests on their merits and not make assumptions based on the employee's sex.
- Abusive or threatening behaviour by managers towards employees can contribute to a breakdown in trust and confidence, potentially leading to constructive dismissal claims.
When flexible working requests reveal gender bias
This case highlights how outdated assumptions about gender roles can lead to unlawful discrimination. The sales manager, who had been with the company for just over a year, made two requests for flexible working to care for his sick child. On both occasions, the second respondent, Mr Coll, refused, telling him that his wife should be the one to handle childcare. This kind of stereotyping—assuming that a man's primary role is as a breadwinner—is precisely what sex discrimination law is designed to prevent.
A pattern of mistreatment
The discrimination did not stop there. The claimant was also required to work during furlough in spring 2020 but was only paid 80% of his salary, a clear breach of employment rights. Mr Coll sent abusive messages, including calling the claimant a 'lazy arse' and telling him to 'work his bollocks off', and threatened to remove his company car. Faced with this treatment, the claimant resigned, citing a fundamental breakdown in trust and confidence.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal found that the refusal of flexible working was directly discriminatory because it was based on the claimant's sex. The comments about his wife being the primary carer were a clear indicator of gender bias. On the wages issue, the tribunal held that requiring work during furlough without full pay was an unauthorised deduction. The total award of £26,106 reflects both the injury to feelings caused by the discrimination and the financial losses from unpaid wages and holiday pay.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that flexible working requests must be assessed objectively, without gender stereotypes. Employers who make assumptions about who should care for children risk discrimination claims. It also shows that furlough rules are strict: if an employee works, they must be paid in full. For employees, documenting discriminatory comments and keeping records of requests and refusals is crucial to building a strong case.
Similar cases
Healthcare assistant with 3 months' service wins wrongful dismissal claim for notice pay
A healthcare assistant who was dismissed without notice after just three months has been awarded £480 in notice pay. The tribunal rejected his other claims for automatic unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, and breach of contract.
Registered manager's whistleblowing constructive dismissal claim fails but unlawful deduction succeeds
A registered manager who resigned after her employer restricted her system access following a protected disclosure was not constructively dismissed, the tribunal ruled, but she won £1,309.52 for an unlawful wage deduction.
Pregnant physiotherapist forced out: constructive dismissal and discrimination at Barnet FC
A head sports physiotherapist was constructively dismissed after being investigated and having her grievance rejected following her pregnancy disclosure. The tribunal awarded £18,152.48.
Charity shop manager's constructive dismissal claim over whistleblowing and disability fails
A charity shop manager who resigned after her probation was extended lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found no link between her protected disclosures and the employer's actions.