Employment: Lawyer was still in post as ordinary people would understand it
The Government Legal Department (GLD) discriminated against a senior lawyer by excluding her from a cost-of-living payment because she was on a career break at the time.
Employment Judge Singh in central London said the tribunal disagreed with the GLD’s suggestion that someone taking career break was voluntarily away from work.
“This was, in our opinion, quite dismissive as to the reasons someone goes on career break, which can often be because they are forced to due to their personal circumstances.
“To suggest that this is different for example to someone on maternity leave who has chosen to have a baby was not a correct distinction in our view.”
Bev Gleeson, who began working at the GLD in 2004, was on a six-month career break which began in March 2023. She said it was “partly to care for her children who have neurological conditions and her parents who had dementia”.
In June 2023, the government made a fixed payment of £1,500 to civil servants “in recognition of your public service and the challenges of the cost of living”. The GLD implemented this for staff who were ‘in post’ on both 31 March and 31 July 2023.
Both women on maternity leave and those on sick leave received the payment, but not those taking an unpaid career break.
Ms Gleeson challenged this when she returned to work in September, arguing that she was still in post at the time. She lodged a grievance, which was rejected and her appeal failed.
Judge Singh said the GLD provided “no evidence” about how the decision to exclude those on career breaks had been reached.
The GLD had “not thought about what the makeup of that excluded class could be and, if they have protected characteristics, what impact the decision to exclude them has”.
The exclusion had “no lawful basis”. The judge went on: “Someone at a later stage has made an arbitrary decision to exclude a group of people without any reasoning.
“This would be particularly jarring to someone who had worked in the 2022/23 year and felt the pressures referred to, but was now on a career break and missing out on the reward and recognition their colleagues had been given.”
Judge Singh said that the eligibility criteria of having to be “in post” should take “its ordinary meaning”.
“Our ordinary reading of ‘in post’ is ‘employed by the employer’. This is what, in our finding, an ordinary person would take ‘in post’ to mean.”
The tribunal ruled that her claim for unlawful deduction from wages was well-founded and succeeded.
On indirect sex discrimination, the question for the tribunal was whether “a greater proportion of women than men were placed at a particular disadvantage by the payment”.
Two-thirds of GLD staff are female. Last year the proportion of women lawyers at the GLD who were on a career break was 35% higher than for male lawyers. This was a “significant and substantial” difference, the tribunal noted.
Judge Singh said the GLD explained that the aim was for as many people as possible to receive the payment.
The GLD “confirmed that there was a separate pot for the payment and if the amount to be paid out exceeded the pot, savings would be made elsewhere to make sure the payment could be made to all.
“It was clear that this was a priority and there was no financial limitation on the respondent.
“On that basis, we do not accept that there was a legitimate aim set out in the guidance which required respondent not to pay those on career break.”
Ms Gleeson also claimed for indirect associative disability discrimination but the tribunal said there were no grounds to find that disabled persons would not receive it and be placed at the disadvantage.
Even though the lawyer had “a close association with disabled persons”, they were not disadvantaged, so that claim failed.
Leave a Comment