Alice Thompson, a Sales Manager at the London agency Manors, struggled to balance her demanding job with caring for her young child. To manage her daughter’s daycare schedule, she asked her employer to reduce her workweek to four days and allow her to finish at 5 p.m. instead of 6 p.m. Manors rejected the proposal, saying it would raise costs and put pressure on other employees. Thompson felt the company dismissed her request too quickly and failed to consider flexible options, leaving her feeling she had no real alternative but to resign.
After leaving the firm, Thompson found it extremely difficult to secure new employment, which intensified her belief that the refusal of flexibility had jeopardized her career. She brought Manors before an employment tribunal, arguing that their actions amounted to discrimination. Her claims included harassment, pregnancy and maternity discrimination, unfair dismissal, and indirect sex discrimination. The tribunal ultimately ruled in her favor on the central issue, deciding that the refusal to consider a reasonable adjustment was discriminatory because it disproportionately affected women with childcare responsibilities.
The tribunal recognized the emotional strain Thompson endured, especially after returning from maternity leave and needing to rebuild her career from the ground up. As compensation for her financial losses, lost pension contributions, and the stress she experienced, she was awarded £184,961.32 — a sum notably higher than her previous yearly salary. Thompson later explained that she pursued the case not only for her own sake but to help create a workplace future where her daughter would not face similar barriers.
However, not all aspects of Thompson’s claim were upheld. She had reported hearing a comment from her boss, Paul Sellar, in which he questioned why she had become pregnant during a successful period for the business and remarked that he had been warned about hiring a married woman of her age. The tribunal determined that this single comment did not meet the legal criteria for harassment, as it was not addressed to her directly nor deemed severe enough to create an intimidating or hostile environment.
Even so, the case remains a significant reminder to employers that requests for flexible working must be taken seriously. The tribunal found that Thompson’s proposed schedule was reasonable and that Manors had failed to properly engage with it, resulting in indirect sex discrimination. The ruling reinforces that rigid workplace practices can disproportionately impact women, particularly mothers, and that employers have a responsibility to evaluate flexibility with genuine consideration rather than reflexive refusal.