An employment tribunal dismissed claims that refusing permanent home working amounted to sex or disability discrimination after judges concluded short interventions during breaks did not create childcare obligations
The dispute centers on a Glasgow-based IT professional who applied for permanent flexible working so he could support his partner with their school-age twins. The employee, Paul Macdonald, argued that being allowed to work from home would let him intervene briefly during the day—sometimes for only a few minutes during breaks—to help when the children, described as neurodiverse with autism and ADHD, were having a difficult time.
The claim was brought to an employment tribunal in Edinburgh after his requests were refused by Computershare Technology Services, the company where he worked as an IT Incident Manager.
At the heart of the legal challenge were two linked allegations: that denying the requests amounted to sex discrimination because the employer’s approach reinforced unequal caregiving expectations, and that it constituted disability discrimination by association given the children’s neurodiversity.
The tribunal examined working patterns, operational needs and prior flexibility granted informally, weighing the employer’s arguments about service quality and collaborative demands during crises. The judgment turned on whether occasional, very short interventions from home could be considered meaningful caregiving that the policy should legally accommodate.
Role, commute and timeline
Mr Macdonald started his role in May 2026 as an IT Incident Manager, responsible for responding to time critical and high priority incidents for international clients. His position required a presence in an Edinburgh office redesigned to resemble a “NASA control centre,” with the employer expecting a hybrid pattern equating to a 50/50 split of home and office time and a 37.5 hour week. When he joined, he lived in Glasgow and, not being a driver, faced over two hours of travel each way. Following a company-wide direction in May 2026 to increase in-office attendance, he formally applied on February 6, 2026, to work permanently from home. A subsequent application was submitted in February 2026 after the firm raised the in-office expectation to three days per week.
Employer reasoning and practical constraints
Computershare refused the requests citing a likely detrimental impact on performance and quality if the role were permanently remote. Managers explained that physical proximity supported rapid collaboration during incidents, and that the nature of the work often involved extended, uninterrupted concentration in crisis situations. The tribunal also heard that while the employer had occasionally allowed ad hoc home working for Mr Macdonald, this was not standard practice and operational demands sometimes made even short breaks unpredictable. He received a formal warning in August for failing to meet the prescribed in-office attendance in a given month, although the matter was later not pursued further after investigation.
Breaks, school run and household arrangements
Practical evidence considered included the couple’s daily routine: Mr Macdonald’s wife, the primary carer who did not work, typically drove the twins to and from school in trips of around 40 minutes each. The claimant said he usually assisted during his allocated break times, but the employer countered that his breaks of only 30 minutes would not permit him to perform the school run even if he were working from home. The tribunal accepted that the unpredictable nature of incident response meant Mr Macdonald could be unavailable at those key moments, meaning a five-minute intervention during a coffee break was not a reliable caregiving solution.
Legal claims and tribunal conclusion
Mr Macdonald advanced claims of both sex discrimination and disability discrimination by association, arguing refusal of permanent home working disadvantaged him because his children had ADHD and he wished to share caregiving responsibilities. Employment Judge Jacqueline McCluskey dismissed both claims. The panel concluded that occasional, very short episodes of assistance—when they might be possible—did not amount to the kind of ongoing childcare obligations that the law protects in this context. The tribunal also noted that the claimant’s wife was the designated primary carer, and that the employer had legitimate operational reasons for requiring in-office presence for that role.
Wider implications and takeaway
The decision highlights the tension between employee caregiving needs and employers’ operational requirements for roles that demand rapid, collaborative responses. It does not negate the importance of flexible working in general, but it underscores that tribunals will scrutinize the practicalities: the nature of the job, the predictability of caregiving interventions and whether the requested adjustments would genuinely enable sustained care. For employers and staff negotiating hybrid arrangements, clear documentation of job-critical functions, past informal accommodations and realistic assessments of what remote work would permit is crucial.
While this ruling resolves one individual dispute, it may prompt other employees and firms to examine how flexible working requests are handled, especially where family health or neurodiversity is involved. The case serves as a reminder that successful requests typically require evidence that the proposed arrangement will consistently meet caregiving needs without undermining essential duties.
