An employment tribunal has found that a senior lawyer at the Government Legal Department was entitled to an extra payment of £1,500, despite being on a career break at the time of the award.
Bev Gleeson, who joined the Government Legal Department in 2004, took a six-month career break in 2023 to care for individuals who have disabilities. During the break, she was not paid or expected to work, but would still be under some work obligations.
This coincided with the department announcing its plan to award a £1,500 payment to its staff “in recognition of the pressures felt during the 2022-23 pay year”. The announcement was made through a briefing email in June 2023, which stated that those on career breaks on 31 March 2023, or due to be on one on 31 July 2023, were not eligible.
However, the tribunal found the decision to exclude those on a career break had no lawful basis, that no consideration had been given to the impact of the decision on protected characteristics, and there was no evidence about how the decision to exclude career breaks has been reached.
It added that the department had not thought about what the makeup of that excluded class could be and, if they have protected characteristics, what impact the decision to exclude them has had. As it found that anyone on a career break was still technically in their role, it stated that the £1,500 should be paid to Gleeson.
Employment judge Singh said: “We found that anyone who had worked during that period would believe the payment was being paid for services carried out during that financial year and that if they had worked in that period, they would receive it.”
The tribunal also found that there was a “significant and substantial” difference between men and women taking career breaks, which resulted in Gleeson’s claim for indirect sex discrimination claim succeeding. A further claim of indirect associative disability discrimination failed and was dismissed.
A Government Legal Department spokesperson said: “We respect this judgment and will not comment further on this case.”