Mrs E Meacham v Pembrokeshire County Council: 1601585/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 July 2022 |
| Date | 11 July 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 01 August 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case No - 1601585/2021
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
Mrs E Meacham
Respondent:
Pembrokeshire
County Council
Heard at:
Wales CVP
On: Monday 13th June 2022,
Tuesday 14th June 2022 and
Wednesday 15th June 2022
Before:
Employment Judge A Frazer
Tribunal Member W Morgan
Tribunal Member C Stephenson
Representation:
Claimant:
In person
Respondent:
Mr C Evans of
Counsel
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
JUDGMENT
1. The Claimant’s claim for indirect sex discrimination and constructive dismissal
are well founded and shall succeed.
2. The Claimant’s claim for associative indirect disability discrimination is not
well founded and shall be dismissed.
REASONS
Case No - 1601585/2021
2
Introduction
1. This is a claim brought by the Claimant for constructive unfair dismissal,
indirect discrimination by association of her disabled child and indirect sex
discrimination. An EC notification was made on 13th September 2021. An EC
certificate was issued on 16th September 2021.The claim was presented on
4th October 2021.
The Issues
2. The issues are set out in the case management order of EJ Moore dated 4th
February 2022. I went through the issues with the parties at the start of the
hearing and they agreed them save that disability was no longer an issue as it
was conceded by the Respondent.
a. Whether the Respondent accepted that they applied to the Claimant
the identified PCP namely the requirement to work full time (37 hours)
contracted hours?
b. Whether the PCP puts women at one or more particular disadvantages
with men in that responsibility for childcare falls disproportionately on
women and if not, set out the reasons why not, having regard to
Dobson v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust
[2021] UKEAT 0220/19./2206.
c. Whether the Respondent put the Claimant at a disadvantage at the
relevant time and
d. The legitimate aim relied upon and the means by which that aim was
achieved in the Claimant’s case.
3. At paragraph 9 of the case management order it had been stated that the
Respondent may provide an amended response addressing a number of
points The Respondent did not provide an amended response and I accepted
that on the wording of the direction, this was not mandatory. I asked Counsel
for the Respondent to clarify what the legitimate aim was for the Respondent
and he stated that there were a number of legitimate aims which he listed as
follows:
- Continuity of service for the service users.
- The requirement to work after school hours to facilitate meetings with key
stake holders namely teachers
- Economic consequences namely the duplicated costs of training and
supervision
- The outstanding hours requested to be filled were so minimal that there
was no reasonable prospect of creating a role to cover those.
To continue reading
Request your trial