Loughlin v DPD Group UK Ltd

Case No: 1306383/2024 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant:Ms V Loughlin Respondent:DPD Group UK Limited Heard at:Midlands West On:9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 16 February 2026 Before:Employment Judge Faulkner Mrs C Chaudhuri Mr J Reeves Representation: Claimant -Miss R Morgan (Counsel) Respondent -Mr P Bownes (Solicitor) JUDGMENT 1. The Claimant was at the relevant times (February to June 2024) a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of the menopause symptom of hot flushes and sweats. 2. The Respondent did not know nor could it reasonably have been expected to know that she was a disabled person at the relevant times. 3. In breach of section 39 of the Equality Act 2010, the Respondent applied to the Claimant the following provisions, criteria or practices (“PCPs”) which were discriminatory in relation to sex: 3.1. The mobility clause in the Claimant’s contract of employment. 3.2. Using time and distance travelled to determine the regions covered by Owner Driver Relationship Managers. 3.3. Not taking into consideration personal circumstances when determining the regions covered by Owner Driver Relationship Managers. 3.4. Requiring Owner Driver Relationship Managers to attend depots at least three times per week. Case No: 1306383/2024 2 3.5. Requiring Owner Driver Relationship Managers to attend depots that were outside reasonable daily commuting distance. 3.6. Requiring Owner Driver Relationship Managers to undertake overnight stays away from home and/or to commute outside of daytime business hours. 3.7. Implementing restructures without giving reasonable or any notice. 3.8. Implementing restructures without engaging in any or any adequate consultation. 4. The PCPs were not discriminatory in relation to age or disability. Accordingly, in relation to those protected characteristics the Respondent did not breach section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 by app...