EHRC response following judgment on Ms M Glover v Lacoste

A spokesperson for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said:

“We welcome today’s ruling and the acknowledgment that Ms Glover, whose case we funded, was disadvantaged when her flexible working appeal was refused.

“No one should be disadvantaged because they have asked to work flexibly. Part-time and flexible working are important ways of enabling many people to participate in the labour market, for example those with caring responsibilities, such as Ms Glover.

“We recently welcomed the government’s commitment to take forward our recommendations to allow employees to make a flexible working request from day one of employment. We hope today’s judgment and the new Bill will improve future access to flexible working and help women to enter and stay in work.”

Notes to Editors

• Melissa Glover has been successful in her appeal against her former employer. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) funded the appeal and RFB Legal and Gus Baker of Outer Temple Chambers provided advice on the case.
• Her case follows a flexible working request she made while on maternity leave, which was refused by her employer, Lacoste, on the grounds that managerial staff must work full-time and be fully flexible.
• The Employment Tribunal found that as she was on leave at the time it was refused, she was not “disadvantaged” by the decision. Ms Glover appealed against that decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
• The Employment Appeal Tribunal found she was disadvantaged at the point Lacoste rejected her flexible working appeal.  It did not matter that she was still on leave at that time.
• The full judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, in the case of Ms M Glover v Lacoste UK Ltd and Mr R Harmon: EA-2022-000534-AT will be published here. 
• Information on what constitutes sex discrimination is available on our website.