In September 2021, we reported an employment tribunal’s decision that an employee had suffered indirect associative discrimination because of her association with her disabled mother, arising from the employer’s decision to require its senior managers to switch from hybrid working to being office based (Follows v Nationwide Building Society [2021] UKET 2201937/2018).
F worked as a senior lending manager for a building society. She was employed on a homeworker contract – her principal place of work was her home, but she attended the office on two to three days a week. The employer was aware that the primary reason F worked from home was because she was the carer for her disabled mother. In October 2017, the employer decided that there would be a reduction in the number of senior lending managers (from 12 to 8). It was also decided that the roles would be office-based, because feedback from junior staff suggested dissatisfaction with the levels of supervision they received. F’s role was placed at risk of redundancy and volunteers were sought for voluntary redundancy. F did not volunteer and expressed the wish to remain in employment and continue as a homeworker. Although more than enough volunteers came forward, the employer asked some of them to remain in employment and F was selected for redundancy. F successfully claimed indirect discrimination based on her association with her disabled mother (see our full report on the tribunal’s decision).
The employment tribunal has since considered remedy and awarded F with £345,708 in compensation. This includes compensation for lost earnings, bonus, pension contributions and various other benefits. F was also awarded £15,000 for injury to feelings. Finally, the tribunal applied a 20% uplift for the employer’s failure to follow the Acas Code of Practice.
The size of this compensation award highlights one of the key dangers of mishandling contract variations of this nature. In its earlier liability judgment, the tribunal had been critical of how the matter had been handled by the employer, and particularly of the questionable evidence base supporting its decision to insist on managers returning to the office full-time.
Follows v Nationwide Building Society [2023] UKET 2201937/2018 [EA1]
Important note: ET level decisions are merely of persuasive value, and are not binding upon future ETs, but can provide a useful indicator of how certain issues are currently being deal within the ET.
For further information and support, please get in touch.
For further information, please contact:
Emma Ahmed, Hill Dickinson
emma.ahmed@hilldickinson.com
