Flexible Working and Menopause: Key Lessons from Employment Tribunal
• public
The legal landscape surrounding flexible working requests is evolving, particularly concerning how employers handle requests from employees affected by menopause. The case of Johnson v Bronzeshield Lifting Ltd illustrates the complexities and potential pitfalls that employers may encounter. This analysis explores the tribunal’s findings, offering insights and practical tips for employers to manage flexible working requests while complying with disability and discrimination laws.
Understanding the Case: Johnson v Bronzeshield Lifting Ltd
Ms. Johnson, an administrator at Bronzeshield Lifting Ltd since 1995, began experiencing significant menopausal symptoms in 2018. These symptoms included low mood, anxiety, low self-esteem, and brain fog, which impacted her daily functioning and resilience. Simultaneously, Ms. Johnson faced increased caregiving responsibilities for her parents and another relative.
To manage these challenges, she requested a change in her working hours, proposing to take Wednesdays off while extending her working hours on other days. The company agreed to a 10-month trial period. Near the trial’s end, Ms. Johnson sought further adjustments: taking Fridays off instead of Wednesdays and moving her lunch break to the end of the working day to leave early. She cited her need to support her elderly parents and cope with menopause-related issues.
A meeting with a company director and an external HR consultant resulted in the rejection of her request, citing operational needs and legal requirements for break times. Ms. Johnson resigned, later claiming direct disability discrimination and constructive dismissal.
Tribunal Decision and Its Implications
The tribunal acknowledged Ms. Johnson’s menopausal symptoms as a disability under the Equality Act 2010. However, it found that she had not sufficiently explained why the requested work pattern was necessary for her condition. The director’s failure to consider her menopause when denying her request was deemed discriminatory, but not directly related to her disability because the decision was based on business needs, not her condition.
The tribunal concluded that the company’s disregard for the menopause’s impact breached the implied term of trust and confidence, leading to Ms. Johnson’s constructive unfair dismissal. This decision underscores the importance of considering all relevant factors, including health conditions, when evaluating flexible working requests.
Practical Tips for Employers: Handling Flexible Working Requests
Employers must navigate flexible working requests carefully, particularly when health conditions such as menopause are involved. Understanding employee requests is the first step. Employees are not legally required to disclose their reasons for flexible working requests. However, if they voluntarily share health-related reasons, employers must consider these factors carefully. For instance, an employee needing a different schedule to manage a health condition warrants a thoughtful response.
Addressing disabilities appropriately is crucial. Under the Equality Act, employers must explore why a proposed work pattern helps an employee manage their symptoms or treatment. If the requested change constitutes a reasonable adjustment, it should be granted. Regular evaluations of the arrangement’s effectiveness for both the employee and the organization are crucial. Recognizing health hints is also important. Employers should not ignore indirect references to health conditions. Even subtle hints can trigger the duty to make reasonable adjustments. For example, an employee mentioning difficulty managing stress due to health issues should prompt further inquiry and accommodation.
Preventing indirect discrimination is another key aspect. Rejection of flexible working requests can lead to claims of indirect discrimination, especially if it disproportionately affects women, who often bear greater caregiving responsibilities. Employers must justify any provisions that might place certain groups at a disadvantage, considering the potential for indirect discrimination based on gender and caregiving duties.
Case Law References and Legal Precedents
Indirect discrimination and caregiving responsibilities have been central to several key cases. The case of Dobson v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust highlighted the need to consider childcare disparities when evaluating flexible working requests. Courts have long recognized the greater burden of childcare on women, which can influence their ability to work specific hours. Another important case is Monti v Marks and Spencer Group Plc. In this case, a tribunal acknowledged that women are more likely to be primary carers for elderly or disabled parents. Employers must factor in these responsibilities to avoid indirectly discriminating against female employees by imposing rigid work schedules.
Promoting a Fair and Inclusive Workplace
The case of Johnson v Bronzeshield Lifting Ltd serves as a critical reminder for employers to approach flexible working requests with sensitivity and a thorough understanding of their legal obligations. By considering the specific needs of employees affected by menopause and other health conditions, employers can foster a supportive and inclusive work environment. Ensuring compliance with the Equality Act and avoiding indirect discrimination requires a balanced approach that considers both operational needs and employee well-being.
