Alice Thompson, who was awarded £185,000 by an employment tribunal after being forced to quite her job at Manors estate agency, wants to see greater support offered for working mums in the industry.
Thompson, a successful sales manager for Manors, wanted to work shorter hours in order to collect her daughter from nursery, but had the request rejected by her now former employer.
“I made a request for flexible working that wasn’t seriously considered,” she told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour.
She continued: “I proposed what would have worked for me. If that didn’t work for the company, I would have been more than happy to hear a counter offer, what might work for them.
“If they needed me for the full hours, maybe eight ’til five instead of nine ’til six, that’s something I could have worked around.
“But it was shut down, every avenue, not listened to, not considered. And I was left with no other option but to resign.
“How are mums meant to have careers and families? It’s 2021 not 1971.”
The tribunal ruled she had suffered indirect sex discrimination when the estate agency refused to consider her request.
Thompson added: “I’d put my heart and soul into an estate agency career for more than a decade.
“That’s no mean feat, it’s quite a male dominated environment to work in. And I’d worked really hard to build relationships with clients.”
Estate agent fined £180k for refusing to let staff member leave work early
Comments (75)
Whether you agree or disagree with the ruling or the person concerned for taking it further, it does not change the fact that women of a child bearing age have now become more of a liability than they previously were and therefore ‘a high risk’. Fine if you are a large company with ample/multiple staff but a small business will stay clear!
“After going on maternity leave, the new mum says she was made to feel ‘like a leaver’ as she was told to hand in her work phone and office keys” – Too right! What does she need keys and a phone for, surely her temporary replacement would need those!!
“She also accused the company of ‘excluding’ her when staff were taken on a trip to New York and organised a booze-fuelled boat trip which she had to sit out” – WTF?? She was invited on a trip to NY costing £25k and she couldn’t get pissed because she was pregnant! Ah, what a shame……lets make everyone’s night tea total and miserable because someone can’t drink!! Get a life! Go shopping!
Absolutely ridiculous!
Sounds like she had an agenda and went for everything she could
Sadly once again estate agents have proved in these comments just how far behind the times they are! It kind of saddens me that even after lockdowns and working from home, we have all trotted back into the office and carried on as we have always done and with the same attitudes towards family life.
Other industries have embraced the new working practices and are looking into new flexible ways of working, new technology and see the benefit of parents sharing childcare.
Shame!
we have all trotted back into the office and carried on as we have always done
Why is that? Just maybe because that is how is ‘has’ to be done. You can only tinker with the engine before is stops working. A rubber band can only flex so much before it breaks and employers operations are dictated by the consumer …. never the employee dictating to their boss or it runs risk of turning sour.
Why is that? Just maybe because that is how is ‘has’ to be done.
MMM…reminds me of something a board member form Blockbuster video would say! Oh no they don’t exist anymore!!! They are all at home watching Netflix, or Amazon, or Now TV or Britbox or Virgin or BT TV or Apple TV! But seriously, their are a multitude of business and operational models already in existence in estate agency that work perfectly well. There is no longer just one way to do this job, accept it and stop berating those who have embraced that.
It’s not a case of the employee dictating. It’s a case that society’s attitude towards childcare roles, family life and flexible working have moved on.
“Other industries have embraced the new working practices”
Please cite examples – with direct relevance to the property industry.
Certainly! Estate agents
The clue is in the word “other”… YOUR word.
Other industries have moved on considerably in their approach to addressing flexible working. As have many estate agents and companies without the property industry. It’s just very sad that there are still so many that think it’s acceptable to comment and behave in this way.
So you have no examples then. Not one. Luckily for you, someone else did come up with a list. Not what I would call directly relevant… but that’s no surprise, as there is no ‘directly relevant industry’ to ours.
But at least they tried.
AND>>>>
Restaurants, automotive, banking, education, insurance, sales, IT, farming, healthcare, utilities, shipping, logistics, manufacturing, mining, financial services, legal, fashion, civil engineering, general engineering, architecture, advertising, design, art, music, film, theatre, do I really need to carry on. All have changed there systems to adapt to recent and gradual changes in the way people work and acess their working environments, deliver products and services etc etc
All are industries that many estate agency businesses have already adapted, stolen and copied new practices and systems from.
And before you ask for specifics, do yourself a favour and just Google it!
“do I really need to carry on.”
Nah – I would say twenty-six fairly irrelevant examples are perfectly sufficient, thank you.
I’m not going to say they are totally irrelevant, as they all contain one common denominator – people. That’s about it, really – but seeing as this whole shebang is about people (one person, in essence – but appears that the fallout will have severe and lasting repercussions for countless thousands more…) then it’s quite a fundamental denominator.
You say “All have changed there systems to adapt to recent and gradual changes in the way people work and acess their working environments, deliver products and services etc etc”. Do you believe for one nanosecond that all those industries you have cited as having introduced ‘change’ have done so with their employees’ best interests forefront in their minds? Or do you think that there are benefits to the industry or the companies within it that make those changes nothing but what are regarded as pragmatic business decisions – even if as a byproduct they adversely affect their respective workforces?
Lol. I love this! You literally have an uncanny knack for making my point for me, entirely unintentionally, all while believing your are making an clever argument against it. Lollipop persons ARE relevant but all other industries aren’t? It just proves you are simply trolling everyone for the sake of it without any ability to make an actual intelligent argument. Nevermind.
Oh, dear. Let me draw you a more simple picture.
“Lollipop persons” are people. There’s a clue in the name if you look hard enough.
“Industries” aren’t people. In fairness there aren’t any visible clues as per the former – but, as you say… you can Google it.
If you look really, really hard, you will see that I stressed that the only relevance between the twenty six ‘industries’ you posted and of ours is the ‘people’ element. So I fail to see what you think is me making your point for you. In fact, I sincerely wonder if you know what your own ‘point’ is.
After all, you’re the one saying “you are simply trolling everyone for the sake of it” when this all started with your less-than complimentary post, to which I simply responded.
Or is that another of your character traits exposed – ‘has issues with anyone having the audacity to answer back’?
FYI Seven out of eight staff employed are female. So for contributors to suggest a culture of sexism or misogyny is frankly ridiculous. They can obviously attract and keep female staff.
Manors should have FORMALLY demonstrated what impact such a change of hours/days would have on the business, which was not done, they simply rejected the request.
A reminder for all employers to follow correct procedures.
Todays lesson:- tick boxes
Overseas trips with staff – booze and bonking is usually the hidden agenda……
Not a great thing to do in this day and age IMHO….
Its time for a grown up conversation in EA – sexism still prevails and it has to change more rapidly than it is……
Agree with the trips and sexism bit, but not the inability of the company to accommodate changes to contracted hours ( I’m sure with the expectation that her remuneration wouldn’t change ! )
Cake and eat it, comes to mind.
She sounds like an employer’s worst nightmare. From the BBC website:
However several other claims Ms Thompson made regarding her treatment, including discrimination because of pregnancy and maternity, and harassment, were denied by the tribunal.
The tribunal found that the director of the Manors estate agency, Paul Sellar, had moved a staff trip to New York from November to August so Ms Thompson could fly in when pregnant, and there were checks to see when the latest was that she could fly.
When there, she did not join the other six for a boat trip. “She did go shopping and then back to the hotel. In our finding she was upset that the others had had a good time drinking and were late back. She may have felt excluded, but it was not because of any action on the part of the respondent,” the judges said.
On the return journey from New York, Mr Sellar commented that Ms Thompson did not seem to have enjoyed the trip, and she replied that she had felt isolated and became tearful.
A few days later he suggested she should not have gone to New York. “We can understand that Mr Sellar may have found her response ungrateful when the group trip had cost him £25,000,” the judges said.
It must have been very isolating and driven her to tears to have to go shopping in New York at great expense to her employer (who had rearranged the trip to accommodate her) rather than either stay at home with her family or socialise with her peers?
Some horrendous comments on this post (and yesterdays) all of which have been made from the safety of pseudonyms. Sorry if this upsets some- but I am genuinely ashamed to work in an industry where people can be so derogatory and downright vile- I didn’t realise our industry was still stuck in the 1950s but apparently a lot of it is.
I feel the case of permitting pseudonyms for users under the guise of permitting ‘contentious but informed debate’ without the fear of knowledgeable parties being penalised (as Chris Wood was) has passed. I wonder how many here would be so bold with their statements if the world knew who they were and the agencies they represented. I know many great agents who now don’t read PIE solely because of the trolling in the comments section- informed debate it most certainly is not!
Some have commented that she has made herself ‘unhireable’- if the identity of many of the agencies involved in the comments above was known I’d wager the issue would not be her finding a job but those companies being unable to place any quality staff (especially women) any time in the near future.
Like it or not, flexible working mandates are coming (and so they should)- adapt and evolve or follow the fate of the dinosaurs.
The best post of the day – well done
Spot on!
Absolutely comment of the day
On £ 120 k a year, you’d think she could afford to pay someone to pick up her sprog from school ! Many other families earning much less than that have to.
Why are we seeing this post regurgitated again today … EYE struggling for stories?
This was my post yesterday…..
There is more to this story and the headline grabber gives one impression and then as one works through it another saga comes to light. Clearly more was said than the story is saying. The chances of finding in favour of been told to work to normal business hours was unreasonable conduct by the employer falls short on its own. Yes the politics today ‘requests’ employers give consideration on flexibility but it is not law to make them do it, therefore I find it difficult to see this was the only reason.
The question is did they present a catalogue of bad feeling between the employee and the employer over time, highlighting ‘sexist’ which would have resulted in finding ‘her leaving’ as considered constructive dismissal? There are hints in the story that this is more likely, than a one off incident over hours.
Flexible working is something for which employees may apply like it or not. You need to have your ducks in a row regarding the needs of your business and be prepared to negotiate. A request should be considered and if not possible for the role, an explanation provided. This lady says her request was declined and no counter offer or explanation provided. Judging by the salary she is a bright girl, even if she might be difficult to work with. Her employers missed an opportunity to ‘move her on’ without consequence. For example, if they could prove that most of their client base were commuters and needed to be contacted between 5 and 6 they would have had a reason to decline the request. It looks like they wanted her gone and took this opportunity to try and maneuver her out. They were out maneuvered. Better planning prevents **** poor performance!!!
My sentiments exactly. It seems the boss just thought he could dismiss her request and she’d just get on with it, which probably works with most staff, as they don’t have the financial resources to just quit. Just like running your systems, you need to follow procedures with your staff too, or you could get caught out like this guy. He could’ve had the outcome he wanted if he had.
Sad world we live in today that many people have a sense of entitlement.
When you read other press stories on this case this lady was also taken to New York by her employer and still found something to moan about.
How about being grateful for what you have?
What todays story and yesterdays story does not say is apparently the employer held a party when she left and was glad to see the back of her (not the brightest of moves).
This shows she was a pain in the backside to work with. What schools, collages, universities and ‘gurus’ don’t teach is you can be great at your job but you also need to play well with the staff and employers.
I don’t hide the fact in my company the people that get treated better are the ones that make more of an effort for the company and with me. That’s just the hard facts of life that the liberal snowflake generation do not understand.
……….. All started with participation medals for school sports days 😉
I agree. her name is out there now she has just made herself unemployable. No way would I employ someone who had treated an employer this way.
I agree as well. feels like there is a lot more than just not wanting to flex 4 hours a week. Taken to New York and moaning about it – and they moved the dates forward so she could fly to go and she was included in everything.
How to make a meal out of anything indeed! I would not employ her after that behaviour, it does not feel as if she cares 2 hoots about the business.
If she felt she had a point to make only and won her case she should not have taken the money – or donated it to a charity, and feel she had made her point
Interesting Smile, as I had wondered… Its not often you would see a business not accommodate a good employee that is worth retaining. I have one pregnant lady now and, quite honestly, I will move heaven and earth to have her back once we have the opportunity to sit down and discuss her options and how we can help her and she has been an absolutely trooper throughout her pregnancy to be honest, her commitment to the company has been very obvious throughout.
Exactly right James White is this case really about sexual discrimination or the inability of an employer and or entire industry to understand that these people, male or female are the corner stones of our businesses. She was a sales manager not a lollipop lady as someone else has stupidly thrown into the mix. This is a core role that she was good at. What would it have cost them, really, to work with her to find a solution? Nothing, nada, nil! This case will now help to support all workers not just women in having BOTH a life and a career. It is possible and it should be available to all.
Can’t believe some of the comments here, if you are of a mind to of course you can find 4 hours a week flexibility for a parent in a schedule, if not you have operational issues. Attracting the best talent, in the current market and a society that is beginning to redraw its priorities after the last 2 years is going to need a much different mindset than shown here.
Right… I’m just gonna chuck this in here and see how many ‘dislikes’ it attracts.
A ‘lollipop man’ tells her employer that the hours he is supposed to be on duty helping kids and their parents to safely cross the road to get to school doesn’t really fit in with his daily schedule, as he has bowls practice most mornings and meets with his mates for lunch down at Frau Renshaw’s pub most lunchtimes to put the world to rights. He still wants the job – but needs to change her hours to allow him to do these activities. He is incensed when his employer refuses to let him change his working hours and seeks compensation via an employment tribunal.
Would he win?
You get a like from me. Strange as we do not seem to get on.
In this insane world yes he would. Why would anyone employ someone who can change their working hours and condition at any time they choose.
They cant, but they can make a reasonable request and it has to be properly considered. This was 4 hours a week and with the person willing to consider making up the hours elsewhere – not a onerous request imo. You can still turn it down if you follow the correct procedures. Dinosaur attitudes will cause extinction.
Right… I’m just gonna chuck this in here and see how many ‘dislikes’ it attracts.
A ‘lollipop lady’ tells her employer that the hours she is supposed to be on duty helping kids and their parents to safely cross the road to get to school doesn’t really fit in with her daily schedule, as she has to pick her grandkids up from another school, several miles away. She still wants the job – but needs to change her hours to allow her to do the school runs for her family. She is incensed when her employer refuses to let her change her working hours and seeks compensation via an employment tribunal.
Would she win?
You know that’s just plain silly….
it has to be realistic and feasible and in Agency where the whole week can be flexed nowadays, flexibility can and should be used as a way to retain and attract talent…..
You forgot to give the post a ‘dislike’, Mr White!
The example (and the one in the following post) was an extreme. It was meant to be.
You will note that I have not commented (nor will I) on the content of this article or the one yesterday. A decision has been reached and an award made. In Law, that’s what you get – a decision… not necessarily “justice”. But one decision forms a precedent for future cases.
Maybe Mabel the lollipop lady (or Norman, her male counterpart) sees this decision and thinks they are on to something here.
Let’s face it – a lollopop person who wants to work 10-11, 2-3 and 5-6 is as much use as udders on a bull, and my examples were somewhat extreme…
…but life – and work – is full of extremes.
It made me chuckle so I didn’t think it deserved a thumbs down….
How many lollipop ladies do your viewings Mr PB?
(thinks back over the years…) None as of yet, Mr White…
…but you should never say never.
Worry not – I’ll let you know if and when.
Exactly right James White is this case really about sexual discrimination or the inability of an employer and or entire industry to understand that these people, male or female are the corner stones of our businesses. She was a sales manager not a lollipop lady as someone else has stupidly thrown into the mix. This is a core role that she was good at. What would it have cost them, really, to work with her to find a solution? Nothing, nada, nil! This case will now help to support all workers not just women in having BOTH a life and a career. It is possible and it should be available to all.
“She was a sales manager not a lollipop lady as someone else has stupidly thrown into the mix.”
Oh – so a “Sales Manager” is somehow more important than a “lollipop lady”, then – and therefore deserves different treatment or degree of respect?
I know who I’d rather have escort my grandkids across the busy main road they need to traverse to get from home to school and back.
You want to give your head a shake, sunshine – people are people regardless of their rank, station… or anything else you’d care to chuck into the mix. That’s a life lesson you obviously haven’t been bothered to learn yet.
You should reflect on how many potential sales or listings that’s most likely cost you over the years…
Ha! You are so predictably one dimensional! If your only retort is to suggest that i am as much a knuckle dragging caveman as you are then I not sure its worth a reply! Comparing this situation to a he or she loolipop person is stupid, irrelevant and nonsensical to the issues being discussed. Thats my point. I highly doubt the defending legal team all rushed to put that argument to the judge ” oh but my Lord what if this lady were a lollipop lady or gentleman would the case not be clearly in our clients favour, mm, mmm wink wink nod nod???” LOL! Pop another Werthers in your mouth, that should keep your brain out of trouble for minute or two, Grandad!
Lots of love, Sunshine
Gen Z, huh?
Gen X actually but thanks for the compliment.
“If your only retort is to suggest that i am as much a knuckle dragging caveman as you are then I not sure its worth a reply!”
But… replied you did anyway – and dug yourself a bigger hole by doing so. I am suggesting nothing – merely stating the obvious. I will save my suggestion until the end.
From your posts, it is clear you have an opinion that this person is in some way, shape or form ‘better’ than another – in this instance, a lollipop person. Tell me – why is that? Why, in your opinion, is this person – any person for that matter – ‘better’ than another? Is it because they have a fancy title? Because they have a job role that you like to believe is more important than that of another?
Your post makes me think of those lovely sorts who seem to revel in coining the phrase “Oh – (he or she) is only a part-timer” instead of appreciating the valuable work that person does during whatever hours they are employed. and that goes for any person… in any job… in whatever capacity.
It’s people with that superior attitude where many of today’s problems lie – which brings me to the suggestion I mentioned earlier.
I suggest you ask yourself if you’re one of them.
You are deliberately misinterpreting (at least i hope you are but maybe giving you too much credit?) in order to make your own sour point. You can’t see the wood for the trees Pops! You are like a lame horse that wants to keep racing thinking their golden age is still alive for them to be showered in accolades, only to be put out to pasture or worse. I will undoubtedly leave the last word to you sir as I make a fool of myself for trying to show you the light.
HOW have I misinterpreted (deliberately or otherwise) your comments?
“She was a sales manager not a lollipop lady… This is a core role that she was good at.”
“Comparing this situation to a he or she loolipop person is stupid, irrelevant and nonsensical”
You clearly have an issue with lollipop (or loolipop to you…) persons. You obviously believe they do not deserve similar consideration to those that reach the upper eschelons of the workplace and become “a sales manager”.
You seem to indicate that lollipop persons do not need to be good at their role. This will no doubt surprise you – but there are a multitude of parents who would be a tad less than happy to learn that the person they entrust their kids’ lives with every day did a p*** poor job and walked them merrily into the path of an approaching bus like a convoy of unsuspecting hedgehogs.
Your refusal to answer my reasonable questions speaks volumes.
Here’s the rub. I posted an obscenely extreme case to see what reaction it would get. (TWO extreme cases, to be precise, with similar but different circumstances). Did I expect a reaction like yours? Not even maybe. For reasons best known to yourself you’ve taken a tongue-in-cheek scenario, picked up a non-existent baton, and run with it like your life depends on winning the race. Not that there ever was a race to win – it was all in your head. Even James White, running rich on high-octane ‘considerate employer’ juice, took it as a bit of a laugh and stepped down from the soapbox for a little banter.
But what it has done is maybe given the EYE audience an insight into you and your apparent beliefs in respect of the value of people, based upon your postings.
‘WizKid’. I bet you are.
Looking forward to your reply, sunshine.
If I could, PeeBee, I’d give it 100 likes. The trend of employees dictating terms and conditions to employers must be reversed.
You can give it 100 likes, Property Ear… just keep clearing your cache! ;o)
The painful to read resentment in many of these posts centre on her salary……
Sexism rules in many EA board rooms and this sample supports that notion.
Husbands, fathers, Wives and mothers all deserve the same right to flexible working where children are concerned…
Its not difficult to flex the working day nowadays is it? In fact who actually believes in the 9-6 anymore? Time for an outdated, sexist industry to move on……
So does that mean that if it was a man who asked for time off to do the school run without accepting any deduction in pay, like she did, that you think he should also be granted this? If so, it’s not sexist is it. If you think only women should have this right to demand time off and rewrite their employment contracts then it could be argued that is more sexist, against men.
Is this really sexual discrimination, or just an employee (male or female) trying to rewrite the terms of their employment contract without the employers consent.
I refer you to my third paragraph
yes
On a personal note I have always collected my son from school on a Wednesday…..and taken the rest of the day off (or part off) ….. the only sad part is that he has just started year eleven, so this will be the last year I can……and I am a bloke…..
Hopefully she will go on to run her own business with her own staff and understand the challenges there are with staff.
As a female owner / worker/ employer I just feel we have gone too far in what we have to “take into consideration” for every employee and it appears women now expect to be able to dictate what they are prepared to do workwise and expect employers to accept whatever they come up with.
It’s getting to a stage employers are scared of employees knowing if they are not happy they will claim constructive dismissal
I’ve read this whole case and it appears skewered to me – not in the employers favour!
Surely we can get back to a more level footing and a better understanding of what we need to run a business – fairly and without feeling threatened..
Summed up perfectly Downdoobeedoobee!
This case is not about someone coming up with some random request and trying to enforce this with their employer. This is a Mum wanting to collect her child from school! As an industry we say we are a people business but do we really care about OUR people, those people who we build our business on and with. Come on, yes it’s a ****** challenge but if a business owner can’t handle a challenge they should they be running their own business?
Wow! Pretty sad to read these comments in this day an age. Just shows how backward thinking estate agency in 2021 still is. Her employer was mad to refuse her requests and rightly deserves this judgment. If she were a man you would be applauding his family values, what a hero! But instead to want to tuck her back into a 1970’s gender role. She was clearly ****** good at her job to attract that salary and there are so many options to employers to offer their employees these days. It good for business not bad. This backward mindset needs to change.
I don’t think the employer was tucking her into a gender role, I don’t actually think gender has (or should have) anything to do with it. I also don’t think that hypothesising the outcome ‘were the claimant male’ is helpful or relevant. After 10 years’ of employment, an employee asked to vary the terms of their employment. The employer declined. It seems the failure of the employer to properly consider the request and/or explore other mutually convenient arrangements was their downfall.
Was she discriminated against on the grounds of being female? By definition that implies that she was treated differently to non females? It doesn’t seem so.
I wish her and her former employer well.
I was under the impression that employers only had to keep the same job open with the same hours and the same money/conditions and benefits. This seems like a landmark change in employment law that this judge, Sarah Jane Goodman, has made. If this is allowed to stand it will make all employers very worried about employing women as the law is now grey and no longer black and white. It could set sex discrimination back 30 years.
EAMD172 – With great respect, if you are an employer then you need to get yourself educated about modern employment law – and fast.
Its important to read the actual case to get the context here. The issue wasn’t that they didn’t comply with her request, it was that they didn’t handle it correctly. They couldn’t show that they had considered, assessed and/or discussed her request with her, it was just outright refusal.
Alice Thompson has just made it harder for female estate agents now. All because she wanted her 120k pa for shorter hours in a job that simply can’t accommodate that.
Surely the missing headline here is that an estaste agent was earning £120,00.00 pa! If Manors had agreed to her request, I guess her salary would heve been reduced accordingly?
Reading yesterday’s, and this article, on the same subject…the claimant’s sense of entitlement radiates from every quote.
‘How are mums meant to have careers and families?’
Maybe, like many necessary and hard choices in life between one thing and another, you can’t always have both.
(And no, I am not for a moment suggesting that women should be denied the opportunity to have a career and a family – just that sometimes the two are not compatible)
“Maybe, like many necessary and hard choices in life between one thing and another, you can’t always have both.”
I find myself in agreement with this sentiment.
Cake and eat it comes to mind.
What I find most disappointing from her own quotes is her blatant discrimination against men.
What about fathers and their careers/families? There are plenty of men who, for whatever reason, need flexible hours after the arrival of a child, they too would/should be granted the same consideration as mothers.
For someone who has claimed gender discrimination, it’s a tad hypocritical that her only concern is women and mothers.
As a female I completely agree with you.
Please tell me about the last time a man was discriminated against for being a father of young kids?
Good luck Alice Thompson with your new Estate Agency role – I wonder who will employ her now.
The “victim” always seem somewhat happier once they have received a pile of cash. Strange isn’t it?
Certainly seems to have had an agenda, sounds to me as if she knew exactly what she was doing. The hours and working times are well known in our industry, In fact, over the years the hours have grown shorter but they are still long and anti-social.