A deaf mother who was forced to resign her job at the British Deaf Association after giving birth because her supervisors refused to reduce her hours has been awarded more than £36,000.
Lisanne Hedger left the organization in 2019 when her manager denied her request to work only two or three days per week so she could care for her newborn kid.
She subsequently sued the charity in an employment tribunal for sex discrimination and constructive wrongful dismissal.
Judge Patrick Quill ruled that Mrs. Hedger, who uses sign language to communicate, was exposed to “indirect sex discrimination” since women are more likely to request lower hours for childcare reasons.
Mrs. Hedger, a project manager, suffered ‘anxiety, sleeplessness, and feelings of diminished self-worth’ as a result of the prejudice, according to the judge who awarded her almost £36,000 in compensation.
Lisanne Hedger left the organization in 2019 when her manager denied her request to work only two or three days per week so she could care for her newborn kid.
She subsequently sued the charity in an employment tribunal for sex discrimination and constructive wrongful dismissal.
Judge Patrick Quill ruled that Mrs. Hedger, who uses sign language to communicate, had been subjected to “indirect sex discrimination” since women are more likely to request lower hours for childcare reasons.
Mrs. Hedger, who resides in Kent, had worked for the nonprofit situated in north London since 2014, initially as a part-time project assistant.
In 2017, while working as a project manager four days a week, she informed her supervisors that she was pregnant and would be taking maternity leave.
Before returning to work in February 2019, she submitted a request requesting that her hours be decreased to 16 hours over two days.
The request was denied, as well as a second request to work 24 hours over three days, because her position needed a minimum of 28 hours per week.
The judge stated that the charity’s choice to require a minimum of 28 hours per week disadvantages women, who are more likely than males to have childcare concerns.
“We are certain that the claimant was placed in a very disadvantageous position, and that arranging inexpensive and manageable child care made it difficult for her to work four days per week,” he stated.
It is not absolutely true that the claimant would have been unable to work the four days, but it would have been extremely difficult for her to do so.
According to him, the charity did not “adequately explore” the prospect of trying to find someone else to complete the hours that Mrs. Hedger desired to reduce, basing its decision on the incorrect assumption that she would be traveling three and a half hours each way to and from work.
“Taking into consideration the respondent’s apparent explanation, the respondent has not persuaded us that the categorical refusal to accept anything other than 28 hours was proportional,” he stated.
“The respondent was not even willing to contemplate a trial period for the 24 hours, and its refusal of the 24 hours was based on erroneous information, namely the belief that the claimant would be traveling for seven hours every day.
Thus, the indirect discrimination claim is successful.
He continued: ‘Our decision is that the respondent’s actions in refusing the flexible work request constituted conduct, without reasonable and proper cause, that was likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between employer and employee, the claimant and the respondent.
“Under the circumstances, we conclude that the dismissal was unjust.” The claimant was not terminated for reasons of performance or behaviour, nor was she deemed surplus to requirements, as her position continued well beyond March 31, 2019.
Mrs. Hedger, a project manager, suffered ‘anxiety, sleeplessness, and feelings of loss of self-worth’ as a result of the prejudice, according to the judge who awarded her more than £36,000 in compensation.
Mrs. Hedger’s claim of direct sex discrimination was dismissed by the tribunal.
In awarding her damages for lost wages, pension payments, and emotional distress, he continued, ‘We recognize that all discriminatory conduct is significant and that claimants should be adequately compensated for wrongs committed against them.
“It is essential to consider the implications on the individual claimant. We have considered the claimant’s worry, inability to sleep, and feelings of diminished self-worth as a result of the respondent’s rejection to accept her request and her dismissal, as we have determined.
“The discriminatory behaviour was neither an isolated incident nor of short duration.”
Her award consists of £11,000 for emotional distress, £16,903.32 for lost wages, £775.38 for lost pension payments, and £2,032 for violation of flexible working guidelines under the Employment Rights Act of 1996, plus interest.
Her total compensation is £36,730.61
The judge announced the award following an April hearing in Watford, but the complete ruling in the case has only just been issued.
The panel ruled against a charge of direct sex discrimination.