Mother of two whose boss accused her of ‘skiving’ off whereas she was taking care of her younger youngsters wins intercourse discrimination case

A trainee accountant who was accused of ‘skiving’ to look after her two young children has won a discrimination case against her boss.

Holly Grant was told by her manager it would be ‘difficult for her to succeed’ in the company because she was the mother of two small children, just one week into her apprenticeship.

Supervisor Katie Thompson also accused Mrs Grant of ‘skiving’ by working from home on Fridays and said ‘you may as well not bother working at all,’ a tribunal heard.

Ms Thompson- who was single and had no children of her own – told the tribunal she believes being a parent is a ‘barrier to success’ at work in the same way it would be for anyone with a ‘time-intensive hobby’, citing ‘rowing’ as an example.

Owners of the family-run accountancy firm, based in Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, became increasingly concerned that Mrs Grant wouldn’t complete her qualifications due to her childcare responsibilities and sacked her just a month after she started.

Mrs Grant told bosses at Buffery & Co ‘see you in court’ and has now successfully sued the company for sex discrimination.

She is now in line to receive compensation.

The tribunal in Reading, Berks, heard Mrs Grant was still breastfeeding when she started at Buffery & Co – which helps apprentices qualify to be chartered accountants – on June 15, 2023.

The company is run by Mark Buffery, 65, whose wife Karen is head of HR and Accounts. The couple have two adult children.

The tribunal heard that prior to Mrs Grant’s appointment, Ms Thompson had warned the couple against ‘hiring someone with children’, as she was ‘concerned she would not have the time necessary to complete the work’.

Ms Thompson, in explaining her comment asked the Tribunal rhetorically, ‘Can we not mention the fact she has children?’ and described raising this as an issue in the same way she would of an apprentice ‘who rowed regularly or had a time-intensive hobby’.

On her first day, Mrs Grant requested space to express breastmilk. Mr Buffery said he granted the request without any ‘adjustments to salary’, which the tribunal said implied another employer would.

In her first week, Ms Thompson told Mrs Grant ‘it would be difficult for someone with children to be able to successfully work’ for the company.

It was then agreed Mrs Grant would work from home on Fridays to allow for her to study.

But, Ms Thompson said she was ‘skiving’ and suggested that she should not ‘bother’ working.

Mrs Grant said: ‘This maybe should not have come as a surprise seeing as I got regular comments such as ‘you may as well not bother working at all’ and ‘skiving again on a Friday?’ directed towards my flexible working pattern..’

Ms Thompson claimed it was ‘banter’.

Buffery & Co were critical of Mrs Grant for being ‘confident’ that she could pass her exams alongside looking after her children.

She was repeatedly quizzed if her husband was going to take a sabbatical, as she had suggested in her interview.

On July 21, 2023, a day after a review meeting, she was sacked – with Mr Buffery saying in an email that they ‘concluded that you will struggle to complete the training required to pass the exams’.

Mrs Grant hit back in an email: ‘I must admit, I was a little shocked to receive your email, seeing as I was progressing well in the job (as per feedback from others), and nothing was highlighted in the progress review meeting only yesterday.

‘The hours were agreed upon at the beginning and were flexible, I would have been up for more if necessary but was under the impression less hours worked for you too, seeing as you suggested not working on Fridays.

‘If the exams/training in the future was the main concern due to my home life, which is what I (fairly) deduced from your email, I am not sure it’s fair of you to make that assumption.

‘I am fully capable of doing the work alongside the children and with my current circumstances.

‘To end my employment because my home life does not suit your model is immoral (and frankly illegal) regardless of whether I am in my probation period..’

At tribunal, Mr and Mrs Buffery claimed they were concerned with her performance, but Employment Judge Christabel McCooey dismissed their argument.

Judge McCooey ruled that how Mrs Grant was going to juggle childcare was a ‘recurring theme’ and a ‘central concern’ for the company.

She said: ‘We acknowledge that Mr and Mrs Buffery had children of their own when starting their business; we also acknowledge they were initially very accommodating of [Mrs Grant] and genuinely wished for her to do well at the outset of her employment.

‘However, we consider that their stance changed when they adopted Ms Thompson’s assumptions about her ability to complete her studies in light of her child caring responsibilities and family circumstances.’

Ms Thompson’s comments would not have been made to a man, the judge also said.

‘We do not accept that a convincing analogy can be drawn between a woman with child caring responsibilities and a man with a time-intensive hobby, like rowing…

‘We find [Ms Thompson] had an unconscious discriminatory view that by virtue of being a mother with children, [Mrs Grant] was less likely to be able to complete the work than others.

‘[The skiving] comment by Ms Thompson was connected to the accommodations granted to [Mrs Grant] because of her child caring responsibilities, namely to not work on Fridays.

‘We do not accept that this comment would have been made to a man in the same position, because we have found that Ms Thompson was operating from the assumption that a mother with child caring responsibilities would be less likely to succeed than a man in the same position.’

Mrs Grant’s compensation will be decided at a later date.