Are you being bullied or harassed at work?

Are you being bullied or harassed at work?

A mum of two has won a sex discrimination case after her boss accused her of 'skiving' off while she was looking after her young children.

Trainee accountant Holly Grant successfully sued the Oxforshire-based Buffery & Co at an employment tribunal for sex discrimination and is now due to receive compensation.

Harriet Gardner looks at the case which highlights how parents can experience discrimination on the basis of sex, related to their caring responsibilities.

This article includes:

• The case background
• The ruling
• What are harassment and bullying behaviours?
• Why is it sexual harassment in this case?
• Are you being bullied or harassed at work?

The case background

Just one week into her apprenticeship, trainee accountant Holly Grant was told by her manager it would be 'difficult for her to succeed' in the Oxfordshire firm Buffery & Co because she was the mother of two small children.

A supervisor had accused her of 'skiving' by working from home on Fridays and said 'you may as well not bother working at all”.

The supervisor, who was single with no children of her own, believed being a parent is a 'barrier to success' at work in the same way it would be for anyone with a 'time-intensive hobby', citing 'rowing' as an example.

The owners became increasingly concerned Mrs Grant wouldn't complete her qualifications due to her childcare responsibilities and sacked her just a month after she started.

Mrs Grant was still breastfeeding when she started at Buffery & Co - which helps apprentices qualify to be chartered accountants - on June 15, 2023.

The tribunal heard that prior to Mrs Grant's appointment, the supervisor had warned the couple against 'hiring someone with children', as she was 'concerned she would not have the time necessary to complete the work'.

Explaining her comment the supervisor asked the Tribunal rhetorically, 'Can we not mention the fact she has children?' and described raising this as an issue in the same way she would of an apprentice 'who rowed regularly or had a time-intensive hobby'.

On her first day, Mrs Grant requested space to express breastmilk. Mr Buffery said he granted the request without any 'adjustments to salary', which the tribunal said implied another employer would.

In her first week, the supervisor told Mrs Grant 'it would be difficult for someone with children to be able to successfully work' for the company.

Mrs Grant said: 'This maybe should not have come as a surprise seeing as I got regular comments such as 'you may as well not bother working at all' and 'skiving again on a Friday?' directed towards my flexible working pattern..' The supervisor claimed it was 'banter'.

Buffery & Co were critical of Mrs Grant for being 'confident' that she could pass her exams alongside looking after her children.

She was repeatedly quizzed if her husband was going to take a sabbatical, as she had suggested in her interview.

On July 21, 2023, a day after a review meeting, she was sacked, with Mr Buffery emailing her to say they 'concluded that you will struggle to complete the training required to pass the exams'.

In an email reply Mrs Grant said she admitted she was a little shocked to receive the email, seeing as she was progressing well in the job (as per feedback from others), and nothing was highlighted in a progress review meeting, held the day before.

They had agreed flexible hours from the beginning and suggested not working on Fridays.

Mrs Grant said it was not fair of them to assume she couldn’t complete exams/training properly due to her home life, fairly deduced from the email and said she was fully capable of doing the work alongside the children and with her current circumstances.

She finished saying that in ending her employment because her home life did not suit their model was immoral (and frankly illegal) regardless of any probation period.

At tribunal, Mr and Mrs Buffery claimed they were concerned with her performance, but Employment Judge Christabel McCooey dismissed their argument.

The ruling

Judge McCooey ruled Mrs Grant’s childcare juggling was a 'recurring theme' and a 'central concern' for the company.

She acknowledged Mr and Mrs Buffery had children of their own when starting their business; and also they were initially very accommodating of Mrs Grant and genuinely wished for her to do well from the start of her employment.

She considered their stance changed when they adopted the supervisor’s assumptions about her ability to complete her studies in light of her child caring responsibilities and family circumstances.

The judge also said the supervisor’s comments would not have been made to a man.

She found the supervisor had an unconscious discriminatory view that by being a mother with children, Mrs Grant was less likely to be able to complete the work than others.

The skiving comment by the supervisor was connected to the accommodations granted to her because of her child caring responsibilities, namely to not work on Fridays.

The judge did not accept that this comment would have been made to a man in the same position, because we have found that the supervisor was operating from the assumption that a mother with child caring responsibilities would be less likely to succeed than a man in the same position.

What is direct discrimination?

Direct discrimination is a type of discrimination that occurs where someone is treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic.

Why is it direct discrimination relating to sex in this case?

Parents and carers can experience discrimination on the basis of sex related to their caring responsibilities.

Direct discrimination can occur when a parent or carer is treated less favourably on the basis of their gender.

For instance, if an employer refuses to allow a father to work flexibly around his childcare responsibilities, but allows female colleagues to do so, because of sex (e.g., because employer believes men shouldn’t have caring responsibilities). This would be an example of direct sex discrimination.

In this case, the tribunal found that Buffery & Co treated Mrs Grant less favourably by making two comments relating to her childcaring responsibilities, and ultimately dismissing her. They found that this was less favourable treatment because of sex and it amounted to a detriment. As such, Mes Grant’s claims were successful.

Are you being discriminated against at work?

Call our team to find out your options. For more information call Harriet Gardner at Wake Smith Solicitors on 0114 223 2726 or email [email protected]

Published 17/12/2024