Mum accused of ‘skiving’ wins discrimination case

A TRAINEE accountant has won a sex discrimination case against a Henley firm after a female boss accused her of “skiving” while caring for her children.

Holly Grant, 29, was one week into her apprenticeship at Buffery & Co in West Street, when she was told by Katie Thompson, a manager of the family-run business, that she was “skiving”’ by working from home on Fridays.

The employment tribunal at Reading was told that Ms Thompson had said being a parent is a “barrier to success” and that she “may as well not bother working at all”.

The manager, who has no children of her own, also compared a parent looking after their children to people who had a “time-intensive” hobby before citing rowing as an example.

The tribunal was told the owners became increasingly concerned that Mrs Grant wouldn’t complete her qualifications because of her childcare responsibilities and sacked the trainee a month after she started.

After she was let go, Mrs Grant, a mother to Rosemary, four, and Juniper, two,  has successfully sued the company for sex discrimination and is set to receive compensation. The firm is run by Mark Buffery, 65, while his wife Karen is head of HR and accounts. They trained apprentices to become qualified accountants.

The tribunal heard that Mrs Grant, from Buckinghamshire, was still breastfeeding when she started on June 15 last year.

During her first week at work, 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. However, the tribunal was told that Ms Thompson said she was “skiving” during these home-working days.

Mrs Grant later told the tribunal: “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 dismissed these remarks as “banter”.

It also emerged that Mrs Grant was repeatedly quizzed about whether her husband, Jack Palmer, 29, was going to take a sabbatical, as was suggested in her interview. On July 21, 2023, a day after a review meeting, she was sacked, with Mr Buffery concluding in an email that she would “struggle to complete the training required to pass the exams”.

Mrs Grant responded 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 or 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 the 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.

She added: “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.”

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

Buffery & Co did not respond to a request for comment.