For advice on equality in the workplace and tribunal procedures, speak to our team on 01332 226 155 or complete the form below.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has recently published a significant decision on how employee comparisons should be conducted in claims of indirect discrimination.
29 April 2022
Case Study
In the case of Allen -v- Primark Stores Limited, Ms Allen was a department manager at Primark who was due to return to work following a period of maternity leave in November 2019. Prior to returning, she submitted a flexible working request as she was concerned that she would be disadvantaged by the provision, criterion or practice (PCP) Primark had in place requiring her, as a department manager, to guarantee she would be available to work late shifts on a Thursday.
Primark did not grant the flexible working request, as other department managers within the store had agreed flexible working arrangements that meant they were not able to work late shifts on a Thursday, which in turn meant there was a risk there would be a lack of cover in the event of Ms Allen’s absence. As a result of the refusal to grant the flexible working request, Ms Allen resigned, claiming constructive dismissal.
Ms Allen also brought a claim for indirect sex discrimination on the basis that:
Indirect discrimination occurs in instances where an employee has not been subjected to unequal treatment, but has not had their needs, stemming from a protected characteristic, accommodated for.
In a claim for indirect discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010), a tribunal must be satisfied that the employer has a PCP that puts individuals with a particular protected characteristic at a disadvantage as compared to a relevant pool of other employees who do not share that protected characteristic. Generally, the comparison pool will depend on the nature of the PCP being relied upon by the employee.
Case Study
At first instance, the ET constructed a comparison pool for the purposes of Ms Allen’s indirect discrimination claim that included all department managers at the Primark store who could be asked to work late on a Thursday, except for one manager who had agreed a separate arrangement with the store. Based on this pool, the ET found that two men and one woman were disadvantaged by the PCP, and therefore, women as a group were not put at a particular disadvantage. Ms Allen’s indirect discrimination claim failed, and she then appealed to the EAT.
The EAT allowed Ms Allen’s appeal, finding that the ET had incorrectly constructed the pool for comparison. The comparators identified by the ET were simply asked to work the late shifts on a Thursday. Ms Allen, however, was required to go so far as to guarantee her availability to work those shifts. This meant the EAT felt that there was a material difference between Ms Allen’s position and her comparators due to the element of compulsion imposed on her by Primark. The pool should only have consisted of those managers who were required to work on a Thursday. Alternatively, the EAT pointed out that the ET could have adopted a UK-wide pool. The ET was entitled to restrict its focus to the company’s workforce, but in doing so had failed to identify an appropriate pool for comparison.
The case has been remitted to the ET for a rehearing.
Related Services
The Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on the enforceability of training repayment clauses in employment contracts.
Read More
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified when employers may be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's disability.
Read More
Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read More
An employer's failure to involve an employee in an investigation led to findings of disability discrimination and compensation.
Read More
The EAT highlights the limits of protected conversations and the risks employers face when discussions are handled incorrectly.
Read More
Employer ordered to pay over £264,000 after a reference referring to an ongoing dispute was found to amount to victimisation.
Read More
Download expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read More
EAT confirms endometriosis can be a disability and examines reasonable adjustments, dismissal risks and performance management issues for employers.
Read More
EAT confirms withdrawing a conditional job offer can breach contract with employers understanding when an offer is binding and notice applies.
Read More
EAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read More
EAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read More
EAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read More