In Suvari v ICE Markets Ltd, Suvari was a sales executive, selling software in the finance sector to traders and brokers. She had to identify potential clients, sell to clients and provide support through the installation process and initial start-up process. Suvari went on maternity leave. She submitted a request to work 3 days a week. The employer refused, as it was adamant that that the nature of the role had to be done on a full-time basis as client expectations would place too much of a burden on the other sales executive and the effective management of client relationships was a key issue. She was told, however, about the possibility of the four-day working week, with a six-month trial period to see if the arrangement worked. Suvari, however, resigned.

A tribunal rejected Suvari’s constructive dismissal and indirect sex discrimination claims. The employer had a legitimate and genuine business aim, i.e. to require their highly paid sales executives to work a five-day, or at least a four-day, week to maintain high levels of client contact and care in a highly dynamic IT/finance environment. The employer had also acted in a proportionate way in trying to achieve its aim, as demonstrated by its offer to consider four-day working on a trial basis, so it was not an ‘all or nothing’ situation’, and the needs of the business far outweighed any discriminatory effect.