Lessons for Employers on Indirect Discrimination, Redundancy, and Fair Dismissal

The recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in Marston (Holdings) Ltd v Perkins [2025] serves as a crucial lesson for employers on the risks of failing to justify workplace policies, mishandling redundancy processes, and overlooking the impact of workplace requirements on employees with childcare responsibilities.

The Facts

The claimant was dismissed after refusing to comply with a newly introduced requirement for frequent travel.  She argued that the travel policy disproportionately disadvantaged women, particularly those with childcare responsibilities.  The original tribunal ruled in the claimant’s favour, finding that the travel requirement amounted to indirect sex discrimination, the redundancy process was unfair, as there was no genuine redundancy situation – the role still existed but with new travel requirements.

However, the EAT disagreed, overturning the ruling.  It found that the tribunal had incorrectly assumed all women would be disadvantaged by travel, without sufficient supporting evidence.  They also determined that the claimant’s earlier acceptance that redundancy was the reason for dismissal should have been binding as the Claimant argued a different dismissal reason later which put the Respondent Company at a disadvantage during the proceedings.  Also, the original tribunal failed to consider whether the requirement was justified by legitimate business needs.

Discover more about Natasha Galvin

Key Takeaways for Employers

It is important to justify workplace policies to avoid discrimination claims.  The employer in this case did not clearly justify the new travel requirement before enforcing it.  The original tribunal wrongly assumed all women would be disadvantaged, without proper statistical or factual evidence.  Therefore, before implementing new workplace requirements (e.g., travel, shift changes, office attendance), employers should conduct a thorough justification review, considering whether:

• The policy serves a legitimate business aim;
• The impact on different groups has been assessed; and
• Whether alternatives could achieve the same goal with less discriminatory effect.

Employers must also manage redundancy properly.  This requires clarity and consistency.  In this case, the employer initially presented redundancy as the reason for dismissal, but later suggested it was actually due to the claimant’s refusal to travel.  The redundancy must be genuine and consistently applied.  Employers should:

• Clearly document why a redundancy situation exists;
• Ensure employees understand the redundancy criteria from the outset; and
• Stick to the agreed reason for dismissal, having inconsistent explanations can create legal vulnerabilities.

Finally, ensuring that there is fairness in dismissals to avoid surprises in tribunal hearings.  In this case, the claimant initially accepted redundancy as the reason for dismissal.  However, the original tribunal allowed her to argue a different dismissal reason later, without formal amendments to her claim and as a result the employer was not given a fair chance to address this shift in arguments.  It is important to ensure that all claims and responses are clear and agreed upon early in tribunal proceedings.

Practical Takeaways for Employers:

Review Workplace Policies Regularly: Ensure travel, attendance, and flexibility requirements are justifiable and backed by business needs.

Conduct Impact Assessments: Before enforcing new work conditions, assess whether they disproportionately affect any protected group (e.g., working parents).

Follow a Transparent Redundancy Process: Make sure redundancy decisions are clear, documented, and consistently communicated.

Train Managers & HR on Employment Law: Equip decision-makers with knowledge on indirect discrimination risks, redundancy law, and fair dismissal processes.

Seek Legal Advice Before Major Workforce Changes: If introducing new job requirements, consult legal experts to avoid indirect discrimination risks.

How To Contact Us:

To contact a member of our team, you can fill in our online enquiry form, email info@fraserdawbarns.com, or call your nearest office below. If you’d like to speak to a member of our team at one of our offices across Norfolk and Cambridgeshire, visit our offices page.

Wisbech: 01945 461456

March: 01354 602880

King’s Lynn: 01553 666600

Ely: 01353 383483
Downham Market: 01366 383171

This article aims to supply general information, but it is not intended to constitute advice. Every effort is made to ensure that the law referred to is correct at the date of publication and to avoid any statement which may mislead. However, no duty of care is assumed to any person and no liability is accepted for any omission or inaccuracy. Always seek advice specific to your own circumstances.  Fraser Dawbarns LLP is always happy to provide such advice.