Alice Thompson, a Sales Manager at the London agency Manors, faced a difficult challenge: juggling the demands of her high-pressure job with caring for her young daughter. To better manage her child’s daycare schedule, she requested a reduced workweek—four days instead of five—and an earlier finish time of 5 p.m. rather than 6 p.m. Manors rejected the proposal, citing increased costs and potential strain on other staff. Thompson felt the company dismissed her request too quickly and failed to explore flexible options, leaving her with the impression that resignation was her only choice.
After leaving, Thompson struggled to find a new role, reinforcing her belief that the refusal of flexible working had harmed her career. She brought a case against Manors at an employment tribunal, claiming discrimination, including harassment, pregnancy and maternity discrimination, unfair dismissal, and indirect sex discrimination. The tribunal ruled in her favor on the key issue, deciding that the company’s refusal to consider a reasonable adjustment was discriminatory because it disproportionately affected women with childcare responsibilities.
The tribunal also acknowledged the emotional strain Thompson experienced, especially as she tried to rebuild her career after maternity leave. She was awarded £184,961.32 in compensation, covering lost income, pension contributions, and the stress caused by the company’s refusal. Thompson later explained that her case was not just for her own benefit but to help create a workplace environment where her daughter—and other women—wouldn’t face similar barriers.
Some elements of her claim, however, were not upheld. Thompson had reported a comment from her boss, Paul Sellar, questioning why she had become pregnant during a successful business period and referencing her marital status and age. The tribunal found that this single remark did not meet the legal threshold for harassment, as it was not directed at her personally and was not severe enough to create a hostile or intimidating work environment.
Still, the ruling serves as an important reminder to employers that flexible working requests must be taken seriously. The tribunal concluded that Thompson’s proposed schedule was reasonable and that Manors failed to properly engage with it, resulting in indirect sex discrimination. The case underscores that rigid workplace practices can disproportionately impact mothers and women, and that employers have a legal and moral responsibility to consider flexible arrangements in good faith.
