Legal area: Employment & Labor

Task:
A senior marketing manager, Sarah, is employed by a multinational company based in London. Following her maternity leave, she requested hybrid working (working from home/remotely three days a week). The employer rejected her request on the basis of ‘team cohesion’ and the need for teams to work together in person. However, the company has indeed launched and pride itself on its flexible working policy publicly, and currently there are other managers and employees (regardless of their seniority) who managed to get their flexible working requests approved.

After her request for flexible working was being rejected, her responsibilities at work also got drastically reduced. She was no longer being invited to senior leadership team (SLT) meetings. Previously, she attended them to make core decisions and contributions on behalf of the company's marketing portfolio and beyond. A few high profile marketing campaigns and projects were also being moved over to a more junior marketing manager and other colleagues from different departments. These were all decided by the employer/SLT without any prior consultation with Sarah. She feels very confused and disappointed being treated that way.

To make things seem even more unfair to Sarah, she overheard news that a male senior manager from a different team had just recently gotten his remote working request approved. Even though we are unaware of the exact terms or reasons behind this approval nor his job portfolio, we are sure that this male employee has no active childcare responsibilities like what Sarah currently has after returning from her maternity leave.

This situation persisted for some time (nearly 8-12 months) and she was not able to get any further support in the organisation, nor getting her remote working request approved despite her trying multiple times with her managers and only receiving a performance improvement note/guide from them. The subtle exclusion of her in meetings and even social drinks also made her struggle to work happily in the organisation. She finally resigned and would like to pursue claims on constructive dismissal and indirect sex discrimination.

Please create a legal memo to analyse the facts and situation Sarah went through, and to analyse whether she will have any claims under UK employment and equality laws; alongside the remedies that she can rely upon based on her current situation. Include discussion of how the facts will influence the strength or grounds of her claim (i.e. how any additional factual or evidential information will help or jeopardise her case) before advising on her prospects of success and next steps.

Reference answer:
**Legal Memorandum**
To: Sarah (Client)
**Subject: Legal Analysis of Employment Dispute Claim **

[ ] **1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

Based on the facts provided, Sarah will have strong grounds to pursue her claims against her former employer in the Employment Tribunal. Her strongest claims lie in the indirect sex and pregnancy/maternity discrimination clauses under the Equality Act 2010 ("EqA"). She will also have a potential claim for Constructive Unfair Dismissal ("CUD") under the Employment Rights Act 1996 ("ERA"). However, as Sarah was still employed by the company (while she went through the issues as listed in her case) for 8 - 12 months before deciding to resign, this might present itself as a substantial legal hurdle that will require further consideration of facts and circumstances. Finally, additional claims include breaches of the statutory flexible working regime, and the new provisions under the Employment Rights Act 2025 should also be considered though they are not directly enforced yet.

The immediate next step is to initiate ACAS Early Conciliation before the strict 3-month (less one day) limitation period expires.

[ ] **2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND**

Upon Sarah’s return from her maternity leave, she requested to proceed with hybrid working (3 days working remotely). We may assume that she might be requesting it to accommodate childcare responsibilities, but this is not being included in the prompt/request so we can keep this as an additional information to be requested.

She was then being refused by her employer on the basis of team cohesion, and the requirement for employees to work in teams and in the office. However, this seemed to contradict the company’s public stance on supporting flexible working, alongside how her male counterparts were actually being able to get their remote working requests approved.

Furthermore, her responsibilities were drastically reduced without any reasonable consultation/reasons, and she was excluded from Senior Leadership Meetings that she was part of before her maternity leave. She endured all this in the span of 8-12 months, and after exhausting any support that she can try to get internally, she resigned and would like to claim for unfair dismissal/discrimination at work.

[ ] **3. LEGAL ANALYSIS, FRAMEWORKS, AND POTENTIAL CLAIMS**

**3.1 Equality Act 2010 (EqA) Claims - Indirect Discrimination**
According to Section 19 of the EqA, indirect discrimination occurs when an employer applies a Provision, Criterion, or Practice ("PCP") to all staff, but it places women at a particular disadvantage compared to men. As sex is one of the protected characteristics listed under Section 4 of the EqA, it will amount to discrimination if Sarah's employer cannot objectively justify their actions as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The concept of a PCP is notoriously wide and no definition is given within the Equality Act 2010. Therefore, it is up to the Employment Tribunal to decide whether an employer's conduct does in fact merit indirect discrimination by way of the application of a PCP.

**3.1.1 PCP and Discrimination**
It’s arguable that the PCP here refers to the requirement to work fully from the office (or the refusal of hybrid work). By enforcing full-time office presence, the employer placed Sarah at a substantial disadvantage. Whilst latest case law from the UK Employment Tribunal such as _Dobson v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust (Sex Discrimination; Flexible working) [2021]_ shows that women will not automatically be disadvantaged by ‘childcare disparity’ when being considered with work/employment arrangements; cases such as _Glover v Lacoste (UK) Ltd _still accepts that women bear a greater burden of childcare responsibilities than men, and that this can limit their ability to work certain hours, such as working nights or changeable hours.

The employer might be able to defend a claim for indirect discrimination if they can show that the PCP is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This is known as "objective justification". There is a proportionality test outlined by _Supreme Court in Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police _to ensure that the measure has a legitimate aim sufficient to justify the limitation of a fundamental right.

The employer will argue "team cohesion" as a legitimate aim. However, their defence is arguably weak here because (a) they have a public flexible working policy, and (b) they approved flexible working for others (including a male manager). This demonstrates that a blanket refusal for Sarah’s request (with weak explanations) was neither proportionate nor strictly necessary.

**3.1.2 Direct Sex Discrimination (Section 13, EqA 2010)**
According to Section 13 of the EqA, treating someone less favourably because of their sex would amount to discrimination, especially when sex is a key protected characteristic. The example where a male senior manager who had his remote working request approved can be a useful comparator. If the employer cannot prove a non-discriminatory reason for treating him more favourably than Sarah, a tribunal may infer direct sex discrimination. Once again in this case, we might require further information as to why the request was approved for the male employee as there might be some alternative reasons that justify the proportionality and reasonability of such decisions.

**3.1.3 Pregnancy and Maternity Discrimination (Section 18, EqA 2010)**
It is unlawful to treat an employee unfavourably because she has exercised her right to ordinary or additional maternity leave. Upon Sarah’s return from maternity leave, her core duties were stripped, she was excluded from SLT meetings, and her projects were given to juniors. This strongly indicates Sarah suffered detriments specifically because she took maternity leave. Hence beyond just the EqA 2010, she can also avail her rights under the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999 where she has a right to return to the same job on the same terms and conditions. The way in which her employer stripped her duties away from her is a strong indicator of a breach to this rule.

**B. Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) Claims**

**3.2.1 Constructive Unfair Dismissal (CUD) (Section 95(1)(c), ERA 1996)**
To claim CUD, Sarah must prove that her employer committed a "repudiatory" (fundamental) expressed or implied breach of contract, she resigned in response to that breach, and she did not delay too long (which would affirm the contract).

In Sarah’s case based on the given facts, the employer has likely breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence by unceremoniously stripping her of her usual responsibilities and duties, excluding her from SLT meetings, and rejecting her flexible working request (which is offered to all employees by the employer) without strong or reasonable grounds.

Nevertheless, often employees who intend to bring a claim for constructive unfair dismissal do not work their notice period and leave immediately. To do so may have a negative impact on their claim for constructive dismissal as it suggests they are affirming the contract. The fact that Sarah actually stayed in the company for 8 – 12 months would potentially pose the biggest risk to this CUD claim. The employer could attempt to argue that by staying and drawing a salary for nearly a year, she "affirmed" the contract and work arrangements that were imposed onto her.

To overcome this, we can argue and rely on the "Last Straw" doctrine _(Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS_). We must identify a recent event (a final rejected request, a specific exclusion from a meeting, or a specific comment) that, when added to the employer's previous conduct, made the situation completely untenable, prompting Sarah’s immediate resignation.

We will also require a more in-depth investigation or analysis from Sarah/ her colleagues to more effectively pinpoint the Last Straw that triggered her resignation. The 8 - 12 months stay wouldn’t then be seen as an acceptance of the contract, but more so that a _Last Straw _incident or contractual breach had not yet occurred at that time. It’s also important to note that a recent case suggests that the “last straw” need not be a serious breach of contract.

_Marshall v McPherson Limited [2025]_ demonstrated that an employee can claim constructive unfair dismissal when the final incident or breach prompting the employee’s resignation is relatively minor but forms part of a broader course of conduct that undermines the duty of mutual trust and confidence that exists between employee and employer. This will arguably be a strong indicator and case law to defend against Sarah’s employer’s potential claim that the ‘breach’ (i.e. not inviting her to meetings) was not a ‘substantial’ breach of her employment contract.

**3.2.2 Breach of the Statutory Flexible Working Regulations (Part 8A, ERA 1996) and Flexible Working Regulations (2014)**
According to the two Regulations listed above, employers must deal with flexible working requests reasonably, consult with the employee, make a decision within two months, and can only refuse based on one of eight statutory business reasons. In Sarah’s case, the employer might argue that their refusal to her request on the basis "detrimental effect on quality or performance" (akin to team cohesion) is a statutory ground. However, as the employer failed to consult her properly, failed to offer an appeal (at least based on the facts given in the prompt), and made the decision based on incorrect facts (proved by the fact others work flexibly without damaging cohesion), she could claim a breach of this statutory procedure.

However, it’s important to note that the Flexible Working Regulations 2014 (as amended) only provides the claimant (Sarah) an independent right to have her request to work flexibly formally considered. There is no right under those Regulations to have the request agreed. If the employer correctly follows the requirements set out in section 80G of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (as amended) but refuses the request, the claimant’s only rights are any which exist under the Equality Act 2010, Employment Rights Act 1996 or Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999. More information about the facts, appeal and decision-making process of Sarah’s employer when considering her flexible working request will be needed for us to make a strong case.

[ ] **4. FACTUAL INFLUENCES: STRENGTHS & VULNERABILITIES**

**4.1 Factors that will strengthen Sarah’s Case:**
By way of a quick summary based on the facts and the law, the approval of remote work for a male manager with (assumed) no childcare responsibilities is the "smoking gun" that undermines the employer's "team cohesion" argument and supports both direct and indirect discrimination. The fact that he performs a similar job function at work also proves that flexible working will not actually impact a manager’s ability to work cohesively and effectively with his/her team.

Besides, as the employer officially and publicly announced its position in supporting employees to work flexibly (as a policy), it further impacts and removes the employer's objective justification for denying Sarah's request.

Finally, the paper trail (or lack thereof) regarding the removal of Sarah's duties to junior staff without consultation demonstrates deliberate exclusion and a breach of trust and confidence. Evidence of any subtle exclusion of Sarah from her roles, duties, and even ability to socialise by her managers or leads in the company should also be documented. These will help support Sarah to prove her case on how the employer is excluding her intentionally.

**4.2 Extra information needed and factors that might jeopardise Sarah’s Case**
What was the _Final Straw_? We urgently need to know what exact event triggered Sarah’s resignation. For example, if she just resigned on a random Tuesday with nothing new having happened in the previous 3 months, her CUD claim will be severely jeopardised by the delay. This might also be a sign of her ‘implied acceptance’ of the employment contract and arrangements.

Besides, it will be helpful to know whether Sarah raised any formal or informal complaints during the 8-12 months, this helps explain the delay and proves she did not accept the new status quo (which will help mitigate the affirmation risk). If she suffered in total silence, it weakens the overall CUD claim.

On that note, it's crucial to get more information on the performance improvement note/plan that Sarah's manager had provided her during the 8 - 12 months period. This is only very briefly mentioned hence we need more information on the substance and context of the note. If the plan matches clearly with the rejection grounds (in the ACAS published statutory code of practice) provided by the employer previously, then this 'performance improvement plan' could further justify and prove that the refusal by the employer is non-discriminatory but rather business-oriented.

Lastly, we need more information to establish whether the male manager's role (the individual who had his flexible working request approved) is somewhat comparable to Sarah’s. If he is in a role that inherently requires zero team interaction (e.g., standalone data entry) and as Sarah is in a highly collaborative role (as a Marketing Team manager), the employer may argue he is not a valid legal comparator in this case.

[ ] **5. REMEDIES AVAILABLE**

If successful at the Employment Tribunal, Sarah could be awarded:

1. **Financial Loss (Compensatory Award)**: Compensation for lost earnings from the date of resignation until she finds a comparable new job. Such a claim and compensation are usually uncapped for discrimination claims; capped at one year's gross pay for standard Constructive Unfair Dismissal (CUD).
2. **Injury to Feelings (Vento Bands)**: Compensation for the emotional distress of discrimination. Given the prolonged 8 - 12 months period of exclusion and demotion, her claim would likely fall into the Middle to Upper Vento Band (currently ranging from approx. £12,100 to £60,700).
3. For her **CUD claim**, a statutory calculation based on her age, weekly pay, and years of service would be conducted as part of her compensation.
4. Even though slightly unlikely, she could also be awarded a **statutory flexible working penalty **of up to 8 weeks' capped pay for the employer's procedural failure in handling her flexible working request.

[ ] **6. PROSPECTS OF SUCCESS**

Here’s a high level overview and assessment of Sarah’s prospects of success in regard to her intended legal claim(s).

Firstly, there will be a **high prospect **for her claim under Indirect Sex Discrimination / Maternity Discrimination. The facts present a textbook case of a returning mother being sidelined and penalised for requiring childcare flexibility, particularly when male counterparts are being accommodated and the same standards are not being applied equally.

Secondly, there’s also a Direct Sex Discrimination claim with **Good/Moderate prospects.** However, it also depends heavily on what we uncover about the male comparator during the disclosure of evidence.

Thirdly, there's the Constructive Unfair Dismissal claim. The prospects of success on this claim will also be **Moderate**. The substantive breach by the employer is very clear. However, the prospect of success hinges entirely on Sarah’s ability to legally justify the 8-12 months delay and point to a specific "last straw."

[ ] **7. PROPOSED NEXT STEPS**

Sarah's lawyers should help her to check and verify time limits immediately. Sarah will have exactly (3 months less one day) from her termination date (for CUD) and from the date of the discriminatory acts (for EqA claims) to initiate ACAS Early Conciliation. This is a mandatory first step before lodging a Tribunal claim. It pauses the limitation clock and opens a window for settlement. It is very crucial to not let this date pass!

Secondly, a Subject Access Request (SAR) will need to be submitted under the GDPR to obtain internal emails, Slack/Teams messages, and HR notes concerning Sarah (especially in the last 8-12 months). This will likely reveal the real reasons the employer stripped her duties and rejected her flexible working request, and may yield evidence regarding the male comparator.

Thirdly, the legal team and Sarah should consider a "Without Prejudice" Settlement Negotiation. Given the blatant optics of sidelining a mother returning from maternity leave while accommodating a male manager, the employer will likely be eager to avoid the public relations damage of an Employment Tribunal. We can leverage this to negotiate a swift and favourable financial settlement for Sarah.

Finally, and most importantly, write down a chronological timeline of the last 12 months. Specifically, pinpoint exactly when Sarah’s duties were removed, who they were given to, every time she asked for flexible working, and the specific event that triggered her resignation. Gather any emails, improvement plans with managers, meeting invites (or lack thereof), and social correspondence to back this up. This might also include any informal conversations (i.e. WhatsApp group chats).

Author's notes on the task:
There are various key statutes or legal remedies available – but it’s key to actually understand the nuances and differences between the different legal frameworks, and more importantly to incorporate the newly enacted Employment Rights Act 2025 which will expand employment rights in phases during 2026-2027. It will be key to see if the AI model can distinguish the timings when these legal frameworks are implemented and how each law can be applied.
There is also a sex/gender element behind this case, including the differential treatment amongst employees. The provision, criterion or practice (PCP) should then be assessed to identify whether it creates any disadvantages to women and Sarah more specifically.
The factual details of the case, especially in employment related cases will be key – hence the initial assessment of evidence strength; including the identification of gaps and further information will also be important to provide Sarah an initial assessment of her prospects and standing in this potential legal claim/case with the employer.
Finally a good answer or legal memo will also provide some potential defence for the employer to pre-empt some potential rebuttals or challenges Sarah might face if she decides to proceed with her claim.

Why this scenario is realistic: This is quite a common situation that lawyers will have to deal when supporting or providing initial legal advice to propsective clients. Furthermore, such a case on flexible working request has also became quite a common work arrangement provided to employees since the covid-19 pandemic.

What makes it difficult: The task requires synthesizing multipl legal frameworks and timelines before and applying them to Sarah's case. It involves multi-hop reasoning, judgment about the strength of evidence and prospects for Sarah, and the ability to communicate uncertainty clearly to a non-technical audience.

Reference materials: Responses may reference the following sources to ground legal and regulatory claims.
Equality Act 2010
Employment Rights Act 1996
Employment Rights Act 2025

Scoring rubric:
rubric_category: Structure & Style Rubric
criterion: Readability - is the text in the memo drafted with line spacings and paragraphs (no more than 3-4 sentences per paragraph) to ensure the overall structure is not too clunky/wordy?
justification: This is to ensure clarity for the structure of the memo
rubric_category: Structure & Style Rubric
criterion: Is the memo drafted in a clear structure with every legal analysis relevant to each separate issue grouped separately under the relevant legislation?
justification: This demonstrates the clarity of the answer and how the advice are grounded againts the core legislations involved.
rubric_category: Structure & Style Rubric
criterion: Dis the response follow a professional legal memo format, including clear, distinct sections (such as Introduction, Factual Analysis, Legal Analysis, Remedies, Next Steps)?
justification: While it is not as legally critical as identifying the correct laws, poor formatting makes complex legal advice difficult for a client or senior partner to digest. Standardized legal structure is highly expected but secondary to accurate legal substance.
rubric_category: Structure & Style Rubric
criterion: Does the response use descriptive and declarative headings or subheadings to organise the main topics, arguments, and/or issues discussed in the section that follows?
justification: This is to ensure clarity for the structure of the memo
rubric_category: Structure & Style Rubric
criterion: Does the response close each main analysis section (i.e., sections that engage in substantive issue analysis rather than rule listing or background explanation) with a synthesized conclusion?
justification: This is to ensure clarity for the structure of the memo
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Explicit requirements
criterion: Does the response identify and analyze the primary legal claims triggered by the facts (i.e. Indirect Sex Discrimination, Constructive Unfair Dismissal, and breaches of Statutory Flexible Working rights).
justification: A score of 5 is assigned because accurately spotting the core legal issues is the most fundamental requirement of a legal memo. If the AI misses the main claims, the foundation of the advice is completely unusable. This is the most critical positive element.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Explicit requirements
criterion: Within the first three paragraphs, does the response directly state the specific legal issue(s) that the overall response addresses?
justification: This is to ensure clarity for the structure of the memo
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Implicit requirements
criterion: Did the answer mention that to save the Constructive Unfair Dismissal (CUD) claim from the 8-12 month delay, Sarah needs to provide evidence of a recent, final triggering event that prompted her immediate resignation?
justification: Valued at 5 because it directly fulfills a specific, complex instruction in the prompt. A top-tier legal analysis does not just work with the facts provided; it proactively identifies exactly what missing evidence the client needs to uncover to rescue a legally vulnerable claim.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Implicit requirements
criterion: Did the answer mentioned and analyse the implications of the performance improvement note/plan from the employer?
justification: This is to pre-empt a potential strong evidential claim from the employer to imply that the refusal of remote working is non-discriminatory.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Implicit requirements
criterion: Did the response analyse whether the subtle exclusion of her from work and social events may amount to a breach of contract?
justification: This analysis is key as the employer will most likely argue that a breach of contract had not happen.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Implicit requirements
criterion: Did the response recommend to consider a Without Prejudice Settlement Negotiation to negotiate a swift and favourable financial settlement?
justification: This is part of the implied requirement as part of the next steps and recommendations to Sarah.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Implicit requirements
criterion: Does the answer logically connect the legal claims to their respective financial remedies (e.g., uncapped compensation for Equality Act claims vs capped for standard unfair dismissal)?
justification: Financial remedies and the relevant calculation or arrangements are crucial.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Reasoning quality
criterion: Did the response highlight the need to apply a proportionality test outlined in Supreme Court in Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police?
justification: This is to ensure that the decision applied by the employer has a legitimate aim sufficient to justify the limitation of a fundamental right.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Reasoning quality
criterion: Does the response explicitly advise Sarah to keep all paper trail relating to her treatment by the employer during the 8-12 months mentioned?
justification: This is a tactical and crucial step for Sarah to retain all evidence required should a legal case were to be pursued by her moving forward.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Reasoning quality
criterion: Does the answer explicitly identifies that the employers conduct (the stealth demotion of shifting projects to juniors and the social/professional exclusion) cumulatively breaches the fundamental implied term of mutual trust and confidence in her employment contract?
justification: Valued at 3. While a basic response might just say the employer broke the contract, using the exact legal doctrine (the implied term of mutual trust and confidence) demonstrates precise, professional legal reasoning required to cross the threshold for Constructive Dismissal.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Reasoning quality
criterion: Does the response briefly discuss the definition of Provision, Criterion, or Practice (PCP) to imply whether if the measures Sarah's employer adopted amount to a discriminatory PCP?
justification: Definition of PCP and if it's discriminatory are crucial first steps for the reasoning.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Reasoning quality
criterion: Did the answer rebut the employer's team cohesion defence against the Indirect Sex Discrimination claim by explicitly applying the legal proportionality test?
justification: This is a brilliant, nuanced piece of legal argumentation. However, a memo can still be fundamentally sound and useful without explicitly detailing the deep mechanics of the proportionality test. It rewards advanced analytical reasoning.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Reasoning quality
criterion: Did the answer analyse how additional information will help or jeopardise her case by explicitly identifying the need for a last straw event?
justification: Valued at 5 because it directly fulfills a specific, complex instruction in the prompt. A top-tier legal analysis does not just work with the facts provided; it proactively identifies exactly what missing evidence the client needs to uncover to rescue a legally vulnerable claim.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Reasoning quality
criterion: Did the answer note the legal requirement that there must be no material difference in Sarah and the male comparator's circumstances for the claim to succeed?
justification: This is a nuanced evidentiary critique. Missing it does not ruin the memo entirely, but including it demonstrates a sophisticated, expert-level understanding of the limitations of discrimination law.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Reasoning quality
criterion: Did the response explain the limitations of the Flexible Working Regulations (2014) amended?
justification: This helps to outline and confirm flexible working requests are not being approved automatically.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Reasoning quality
criterion: Did the answer critically analyse the male senior manager as a statutory actual comparator for a Direct Sex Discrimination claim?
justification: This is a highly nuanced evidentiary critique. Missing it does not ruin the memo, but including it demonstrates a sophisticated, expert-level understanding of the limitations of discrimination law.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Reasoning quality
criterion: Did the response discuss the implications of childcare duty (women vs man)?
justification: This often has weightage in tribunals even though they are not an explicit legal requirement.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Legal correctness
criterion: Does the response identify the 8 to 12 months delay as a major legal hurdle (affirmation of the contract) for the Constructive Unfair Dismissal claim?
justification: In UK employment law, waiting nearly a year to resign after a breach almost certainly means the employee affirmed the contract. Promising a client success without warning them of this fatal trap constitutes negligent advice.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Legal correctness
criterion: Did the answer advise Sarah to submit a Subject Access Request (SAR) to be submitted under the GDPR to obtain any internal information (i.e. emails, Slack/Teams messages, and HR notes) concerning Sarah's case?
justification: There will be many mentions of requiring further information to build Sarah's case. Hence it's vital to be aware of how to get evidence legally.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Legal correctness
criterion: Does the response mentioned the Flexible Working Regulations (2014) amended?
justification: Quoting this as part of the package of recent legislations demonstrate the validity and accuracy of the answer.
rubric_category: Substance Rubric - Legal correctness
criterion: Does the response discussed the legal implications of the employer's team cohesion justification?
justification: Analyse the burden of proof in indirect discrimination claims, where the employer must prove their policy is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
rubric_category: Sources and References Rubric
criterion: Does the response reference key case laws linked to PCP (such as Dobson v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust (Sex Discrimination; Flexible working) [2021] and Glover v Lacoste (UK)?
justification: Case laws that further explains the legal definition of PCPs are key to this case.
rubric_category: Sources and References Rubric
criterion: Does the response explicitly cite the core statutes requested in the prompt, specifically the Equality Act 2010 and the Employment Rights Act 1996, mapping the prompt's facts to these authorities?
justification: Legal advice without statutory authority is merely an opinion. Citing the correct acts demonstrates reliable legal grounding, though providing pinpoint section numbers is slightly less critical than getting the overall legal doctrine correct.
rubric_category: Sources and References Rubric
criterion: Does the response refer to the ACAS statutory code of practice when referring to the statutory reasons for refusing a flexible working claim?
justification: Any legititimate and legal refusal of flexible working requests should be made in accordance to the ACAS statutory code of practice.
rubric_category: Sources and References Rubric
criterion: Does the response consider and apply the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999?
justification: As Sarah's flexibile working request links to her return from maternity leave, consideration of this law will be key.
rubric_category: Negative Rubric
criterion: Does the response analyses the discrimination purely on the basis of sex-related childcare responsibilities for the flexible working refusal?
justification: Gotcha. A specialist would immediately spot that stripping a woman of her leadership duties right after maternity leave is also a standalone, highly potent claim that doesn't even require a male comparator (not just childcare responsibilities). Missing this leaves a massive piece of leverage off the table.
rubric_category: Negative Rubric
criterion: Does the response incorrectly identify the blanket office attendance policy as Direct Sex Discrimination, rather than Indirect Sex Discrimination (a neutral policy that disadvantages women)?
justification: 3 is given for this Gotcha. While the response might correctly identified that discrimination occurred, applying the wrong legal test shows a flawed understanding of legal mechanics. This would result in incorrectly drafted tribunal pleadings, making it a significant error, though slightly less catastrophic than missing a limitation date.
rubric_category: Negative Rubric
criterion: The analysis fails to identify how the male comparator will have an effect on the final outcome.
justification: Fails to provide the comprehensive legal triage requested by the prompt.
rubric_category: Negative Rubric
criterion: Does the response fail to mention the strict 3-month less one day limitation period for Employment Tribunal claims which also links to the mandatory ACAS Early Conciliation step?
justification: -5 is assigned because missing a statutory deadline is the most common cause of legal malpractice. A memo advising a client on next steps that fails to warn them about imminent, strict time limits is highly dangerous and fundamentally flawed.

Peer review 1:
Overall quality: 3 - Meets Minimum Standards
There are so many grammatical errors in the prompt, the response and in the rubric. The writing and legal explanations are correct but could be worded much better to provide more clear answers and requests.
Representativeness: 4 - Typical
Difficulty: 3 - Moderate
There is a need to review the cited materials to help understand the issues and how a court would likely review/proceed.
Task specification: Well-Specified

Peer review 2:
Overall quality: 4 - Above Standards
The substance is very well done - the legal analysis is completely on point, and the prompt is a relatively narrow legal issue that still requires deep analysis to answer correctly. The gaps are minor grammar issues, which can be easily addressed.
Representativeness: 4 - Typical
Difficulty: 3 - Moderate
This would likely not be a complex analysis for a UK-based employment litigator, but a non-practitioner based in a different jurisdiction would have a difficult time with this task.
Task specification: Well-Specified