An IT manager has failed in his attempt to sue his bosses for sexism after he was told he couldn't work from home to help his wife look after their twins in case she had a 'rough day'.   

Paul Macdonald claimed he was discriminated against because bosses at an international computer firm wouldn't grant him flexible working arrangements so he could help his wife with childcare.

He argued that home-working would let him 'help out' his wife by looking after their twins 'for five minutes during coffee breaks' and that being ordered to work in an office meant he couldn't help with the school run or get home in case there was an emergency.

Mr Macdonald, from Glasgow, Scotland, eventually stopped showing up to work in Edinburgh, even though his job was in 'high priority' crisis management, it was heard.

Now an employment tribunal in the Scottish capital has dismissed his case after it was found that his requests were denied because of the 'detrimental impact on quality' working from home would have.

Mr Macdonald began working as an IT Incident Manager at Computershare Technology Services, where he still works, in May 2022.  

The company works for businesses internationally, including high-flying finance companies, and Mr Macdonald's role was to help in 'high priority and time critical IT incidents'.

During an IT crisis, he could work for hours without a break, the Edinburgh Employment Tribunal heard.

He was required to work in the Edinburgh office, which had been redeveloped to look like a 'NASA control centre', with a 50/50 split between working from home and coming into the office, and his hours would total 37.5 per week.

When Mr Macdonald got the job, however, he lived in Glasgow, and as he did not drive, his commute was over two hours each way.

In May 2023, after COVID, the CEO of Computershare sent an email to all employees saying the company needed to 'stay competitive' so they should come into the office for two days a week.

On February 6, 2024, Mr Macdonald made a flexible working request to permanently work from home.

He wrote: 'It is becoming increasingly difficult to commit to getting into the office even with the low expectation of in office time. 

'This is a result of the care responsibilities of my twins.'

Mr Macdonald's request was refused, but he made another request for permanent home working in February 2025 after the company asked for three in-office days a week.

He wrote: 'Due to my caregiving responsibilities for my twins, who are neurodiverse (autistic & ADHD), it has become increasingly challenging to meet the current expectations for in-office time.

'When I am in the office, I am unable to assist my wife with the school run, which I usually do during my allocated break time.

'Furthermore, I am concerned about the difficulty of returning home promptly in case of emergencies or issues requiring medical attention or last-minute appointments for the boys.

'The travel time and irregularity of direct trains to my home station exacerbate this issue.'

Mr Macdonald's wife, who was the designated carer and did not work, 'drove their twins to school at around 8am and returned home around 8:40am, a round trip of about 40 minutes.

'She left home again around 2:30pm to pick the twins up and returned home around 3:10pm, again a round trip of about 40 minutes', the tribunal heard.

However, it was argued that the IT manager's breaks were only 30 minutes long, so he would have been unable to help take the twins to school even if he did work from home, and his wife would have to drive anyway as he could not.

Because he worked on 'high priority' jobs, he would also have been unable to simply drop them to help with 'last-minute medical appointments'.

Computershare had been flexible in the past and occasionally allowed Mr Macdonald to stay at home to help out with his twins, but this was not a regular occurrence.

Mr Macdonald had a meeting with his bosses to discuss his second request, and mentioned that 'permanent home working would mean he could intervene for a short period of about five minutes, during a coffee or comfort break from work, if there were behavioural issues with the twins due to their neurodiversity'.

He added that 'the biggest factor is if the twins have a rough day when they leave school from 3pm until 8:10pm my partner has to deal with the kids as a carer, if I don't get home until 8.10pm that's a long time.'

His request was refused with managers citing the 'detrimental impact on performance and quality', but said they understood his circumstances and would try to accommodate when possible.

It was understood that being physically with co-workers would help 'collaboration' especially in times of crisis.

He appealed but it was refused.

In August, Mr Macdonald received his first warning for not coming into work for the required nine days a month, but after an investigation, Computershare decided not to take action.

The tribunal heard that another employee applied for flexible working from home for health reasons, and they did not hold a critical role, and was still turned down for efficiency reasons in April 2024.

But this did not stop Mr Macdonald from taking his employer to an employment tribunal in Edinburgh because he alleged that they had discriminated against him.

He lodged claims of sex discrimination and disability discrimination, arguing that because his child had ADHD, he was the victim of disability discrimination by association when his flexible working requests were denied.

However, Employment Judge Jacqueline McCluskey dismissed both claims.

Judge McCluskey said: 'If [Mr Macdonald] had been permitted to work from home on a permanent basis, he may have been able to assist his wife for five minutes during his coffee or comfort break.

'This would depend if he was working on a high priority or time critical incident. [His] wife was also at home.

'The Tribunal was not satisfied that intervening for a few minutes, when he could, amounted to childcare obligations.

'The Tribunal also concluded that it was [his] wife who had the childcare obligations, not [Mr Macdonald]. She was the one responsible for the care of the children.'