Justification

Case 1: The facts

Mrs Mitchell was a part-time worker whose employer decided that it needed a full-time worker in her role. Mitchell said she could not do this because of childcare responsibilities, but raised the option of a job share. The employer rejected this and dismissed Mitchell, who brought a sex discrimination claim.

A tribunal established that the need to work full-time was a “provision, criterion or practice” which had an adverse effect on more women than men; therefore there was potential indirect discrimination. But it also found that this was justified and therefore not unlawful.

The ruling

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had wrongly approached the question of justification: it was not enough to simply say that the employer was justified in needing a full-time worker and not considering a job share.

The tribunal should have undertaken a proper analysis of the needs of the business, and considered whether the proposal for a full-time worker was reasonably necessary.

Mitchell’s case was sent back to the same tribunal for further consideration.

Mitchell v David Evans Agricultural Ltd UKEAT/0083/06