Nationwide Building Society has been ordered to pay more than £350,000 in compensation to a former employee who was made redundant after refusing to abide by its return-to-office (RTO) mandate.

Jayne Follows, who the tribunal heard was a “top performer” at work and carer to an elderly and disabled mother, successfully brought a claim of indirect disability discrimination and unfair dismissal against the bank.

The result ends a five-year dispute between the two parties, which started in 2017 after Follows was told she was at risk of redundancy for refusing to give up her existing working conditions.

The bank had previously allowed certain employees a home-working contract and Follows, who typically worked two to three days from the office, agreed her working pattern with Nationwide.

The firm was also made aware of Follows’ caring responsibilities.

In October 2017, Nationwide decided to cut a number of senior managerial positions, including the one Follows held, and eliminate home-working to make sure the remaining managers were able to give junior staff more supervision.

After declining to give up her days working at home, Follows was told that she was at risk of redundancy.

A month later, she sent a formal complaint to her operations director complaining that the company was seeking to change her existing working conditions.

When asked to make a counter-proposal, Follows told her director: “My counter-proposal is [for me] to continue on my existing home-working arrangement and this is never going to be supported [by you] based on unsupported and non-existent ‘business needs’.”

Follows was made redundant the following January.

She then sued the company for sex and disability discrimination, and unfair dismissal, with the tribunal upholding the latter two claims.

Follow’s suit serves to highlight the risks employers face when managing a return to the office, because if an employer does have legitimate reasons for implementing a change to working terms and conditions, they should consult with their employees and must ensure they document the reasons and the steps taken to avoid or minimise any disadvantage to the employees.

Equally, if an employee wants to change their working arrangements due to caring responsibilities, then they should make a Flexible Working Request and these requests should be given fair consideration before simply dismissing them.

Nationwide’s decision to make Follows redundant was found by judge Mark Emery to have no basis in evidence.

In essence Nationwide had made up their mind that they wanted Follows to work from the office and would not entertain any other option, regardless of the circumstances.

This also highlights why it’s important that Employers provide training and guidance to managers and staff on disability discrimination, including indirect and discrimination by association, and the duty to make reasonable adjustments.

It may not always be obvious that an employee is protected under the Equality Act (as was the case of Follows) not because that individual may be disabled, but because they may be associated with someone who is – which is where the indirect discrimination has happened in this case.

In this case, the employment tribunal awarded nearly £350,000 to the claimant, which highlights the costly fallout of unlawful discrimination and unfair dismissal in these scenarios.

Receiving and employment tribunal claim from an employee can be challenging. When an employee brings a claim against your company and the ET1 form lands on your desk, what happens next? Download our FREE eBook: 7 Tips to manage an Employment Tribunal Claim – Meraki HR