Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key precedents that shaped the Tribunal's decision:

• Kumchyk v Derby CC [1978] ICR 116: Established that a PCP must be identified clearly by the claimant, and employers cannot derive undisputable PCPs from the facts post hoc.
• Allonby v Accrington College [2001] ICR 1189: Emphasized the broad interpretation of what constitutes a PCP, rejecting narrow or one-off analyses.
• Sinclair Roche & Temperley v Heard [2004] IRLR 763: Highlighted that general societal roles and responsibilities, such as childcare, must be considered within the context of the specific case.
• University of Manchester v Jones [1993] ICR 474: Provided statistical methodologies for assessing disparate impact.
• Briggs v North Eastern Education and Library Board [1990] IRLR 181: Affirmed that specific job-related requirements could constitute indirect discrimination.
• Watches of Switzerland Ltd v Savell [1983] IRLR 141: Demonstrated that even subjective promotion criteria could be scrutinized under discrimination laws.
• Barry v Midland Bank plc [1999] IRLR 582: Established the use of the word "cogent" in assessing employer justifications.
• Cadman v Health & Safety Executive [2004] IRLR 971: Reinforced that justification must be objective and free from discriminatory motives.
• Hardys & Hansons Plc v Lax [2005] EWCA Civ 846: Affirmed the necessity of appellate scrutiny over Tribunal evaluations of employer justifications.

Legal Reasoning

The Tribunal's legal reasoning centered on the interpretation and application of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, particularly focusing on sections 1(2)(b) and 6(2)(b). They examined whether British Airways' policy constituted a PCP that:

• Affected a considerably larger proportion of women than men.
• Was not justifiable irrespective of the claimant's sex.
• Resulted in detriment to the claimant.

The Court meticulously dissected whether the refusal to grant 50% part-time work was a PCP and concluded affirmatively. The Respondent's reliance on business justifications, such as increased costs and resource constraints, was insufficient without demonstrating that such justifications were necessary and proportionate. The Tribunal also assessed the societal context, recognizing that women are more likely to seek part-time work due to primary childcare responsibilities, thereby exacerbating the discriminatory impact.

Impact

This judgment underscored the importance of evaluating employer policies through the lens of indirect discrimination. It set a precedent that even well-intentioned policies must be scrutinized for their disproportionate impact on protected groups. The case has broader implications for:

• Flexible Working Arrangements: Employers must ensure that flexible work policies do not inadvertently disadvantage a particular gender.
• Policy Justification: Business justifications for employment practices must be robust, objective, and directly related to the necessity, avoiding post hoc rationalizations.
• Statistical Analysis in Discrimination Claims: While statistics are pivotal, the Tribunal has the leeway to consider broader contextual factors beyond numerical data.

Future cases would refer to this judgment to evaluate the fairness and discrimination potential of part-time work policies, particularly in industries with gendered employment patterns.