Title

Autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et dolore feugait

Tag Archive

Avoiding maternity/pregnancy discrimination

Most employers are familiar with the fact that maternity and pregnancy discrimination are deemed to be ‘protected characteristics’ under the Equality Act 2010 (“EQA”) and surprisingly a recent survey of 500 managers (conducted by Slater and Gordon) highlighted a third of managers would rather employ a man in his 20s or 30s over a woman of the same age for fear of footing the maternity leave bill the woman to have a child – or worse, children.

Read More

Pregnancy and discrimination: Nunki Pippin

From a lay objective, when it comes to pregnancy and discrimination, employers always seem to be skirting a fine line with virtually any alteration to the work situation of the relevant pregnant lady.

It can then occasionally be surprising as to what may constitute a ‘detriment’ within the meaning of section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 (EQA).  In the recent case of Metropolitan Police v Keohane,the question was asked as to whether a police dog handler suffered a detriment by having her dog removed from her when she ceased to be operational due to her pregnancy.

Read More

Are Associate Dentists Workers under the Equality Act 2010?

The long standing debate amongst lawyers in respect  of whether ‘Associate Dentists’ were workers under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) has had some clarification over the last couple of years.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the legislation, a worker under the ERA is defined as someone who has entered into or works under a:

Read More

Discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy/maternity leave

This week while preparing to defend a claim for discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy/maternity I re-read the interesting case of Johal –v- Commissioner for Equality and HR UKEAT/0541/09/DA where the EAT held (after examining a number of important discrimination cases) that the Claimant had not been discriminated or treated less favourably on the grounds that she was on maternity leave when her employer failed to inform her of an internal role, the real reason was that there had been an administrative error.

Read More