Speaking of time brings me to the recent case of Joanne Neill v Dermalogica UK Ltd, and the marginalisation of part-timers, which, in this case, ended in tribunal.

Ms Neill had been employed by Dermalogica UK Ltd as a part-time facilities consultant since 1995. In early 2022, she began experiencing serious mental health issues including severe depressive disorder, anxiety and panic attacks. Her condition deteriorated, leading her to seek refuge with family due to concerns for her safety. Both the employer and Ms Neill’s colleagues were aware; Ms Neill was visibly distressed at work on multiple occasions. Ms Neill continued working through these difficult times, partly due to limited sick pay entitlement and being a single parent.

In November 2022, Ms Neill received an invitation to a virtual meeting titled “catch up” which was scheduled on her day off. Without context of the nature of the meeting, the head of HR team and Ms Neill’s manager were present and informed her that her role had been selected for redundancy. The employer stated the decision stemmed from a global requirement to reduce headcount by “half a head” and because Ms Neill worked part-time, she was selected as part of the process.

Word of Ms Neill’s redundancy circulated within the business before any formal consultation had begun and this worsened her mental health as it was believed that she was sacked on her day off, resulting in Ms Neill being signed off sick.

Ms Neill initially engaged in a redundancy consultation following the meeting but later withdrew, believing the process to be a ‘sham’ and refused to participate in the process going forward. Ms Neill then raised a grievance, citing discrimination based on both her disability and part-time status.

The grievance process placed her redundancy on hold to allow the employer to investigate the grievance. The employer responded to the grievance in January 2023, acknowledging that her selection had been unfair due to her part-time role but denying any disability discrimination.

Ms Neill appealed the decision and raised further concerns about how the process had been conducted and the breakdown in trust that followed. A second redundancy process was initiated but later paused due to the ongoing appeal, which ultimately remained unresolved as no response was provided.

By September 2023, Ms Neill learned a colleague had resigned which effectively removed the redundancy risk to her job role. However, due to the uncertainties and the way the process was conducted, she was confident that she would be dismissed at any point. So, when the employer requested for Ms Neill to return to work, she refused as she had lost trust and confidence in her employer by this point.

Ms Neill then brought tribunal claims for a failure to make reasonable adjustments, indirect sex discrimination and part-time worker discrimination.

The ET accepted that Ms Neill was disabled under the Equality Act 2010, noting the substantial and long-term impact of her mental health condition on day-to-day functioning, including sleep, eating and concentration. The ET found the employer failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments such as scheduling a redundancy meeting on her non-working day without providing any context, which added unnecessary stress and anxiety. This was found to have exacerbated her mental health which the ET held to be something that was foreseeable and avoidable.

Further, the ET upheld Ms Neills’ claim of indirect sex discrimination. In the initial redundancy process, Ms Neill was selected solely because she worked part-time, however, given that women are statistically more likely to hold part-time roles, this practice placed Miss Neill at a disadvantage. The ET held that the employer had not justified its actions as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Ms Neill’s claim under the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 was also successful as the ET found no objective justification for treating her less favourably than a full-time counterpart.

As a result, Ms Neill was awarded £24,042.08 in total, covering injury to feelings and lost bonus payments.

This case is a timely reminder for employers not only to have, but to also follow, a fair, transparent and inclusive process, particularly when managing vulnerable staff or undertaking organisational change. It is important for employers to treat all members of staff equally, regardless of their status or working arrangements during their selection criteria for redundancy. Justifying part-time dismissal solely due to hours worked is likely to be discriminatory and should never be the sole reason staff are selected for redundancy.