Pregnancy and maternity discrimination

New and updated

  • Awards for injury to feelings

    Date:
    1 May 1996
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Orlando v Didcot Power Station Sports & Social Club (3 November 1995) EOR67D, the EAT holds that in assessing injury to feelings for discrimination, whether the employer has admitted that it has acted in breach of the legislation may help to reduce the hurt which is felt.

  • Return of the sick man

    Date:
    1 May 1995
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Brown v Rentokil Ltd (18 January 1995) EOR61A, the Inner House of the Scottish Court of Session rules that even after the European Court's decision in Webb, there is no sex discrimination against a pregnant woman dismissed as a result of absence due to a pregnancy-related illness if she is treated the same way as a man absent through illness.

  • Discrimination against agency worker

    Date:
    1 January 1995
    Type:
    Law reports

    In BP Chemicals Ltd v Gillick and Roevin Management Services Ltd (24 August 1994) EOR59C, the EAT rules that s.9 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 covers discrimination against a contract worker by a principal who refused to allow her to return to work after time off due to pregnancy and maternity.

  • Sick man defence barred

    Date:
    1 September 1994
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (14 July 1994) EOR57A, the European Court of Justice rules that it is contrary to the Equal Treatment Directive to dismiss a woman employed for an unlimited term who, shortly after her recruitment is found to be pregnant, notwithstanding that she was recruited initially to replace another employee during the latter's maternity leave.

  • Guidance on pregnancy dismissal awards

    Date:
    1 September 1994
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Ministry of Defence v Cannock and others (29 July 1994) EOR57E, the EAT sets out guidance as to the principles to be applied by industrial tribunals in assessing compensation for servicewomen who were dismissed because of their pregnancy contrary to European Community law.

  • Comparative approach endorsed

    Date:
    1 November 1993
    Type:
    Law reports

    In (1) Dixon v Rees and (2) Hopkins v Shepherd & Partners (30 July 1993) EOR52C, the EAT rules that a comparison with how a man would be treated is necessary in pregnancy discrimination cases unless the case is one of dismissal for pregnancy "without more".

  • Dismissal of unmarried pregnant school matron not discriminatory

    Date:
    1 July 1991
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Berrisford v Woodard Schools (Midland Division) Ltd (6 March 1991) EOR 38E, the EAT holds that a woman was not dismissed by reason of pregnancy where it was not the fact of pregnancy as such that her employers objected to, but the adverse example it conveyed together with her unmarried status.

  • Pregnancy dismissals contravene EEC law

    Date:
    1 January 1991
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Handels-og Kontorgunktionaerernes Forbund i Danmark (acting for Hertz) v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening (acting for Aldi Marked k/s) (8 November 1990) EOR35B, the European Court rules that a woman is protected from dismissal because of her absence during pregnancy and any maternity leave to which she has a right under national law.

  • Pregnancy discrimination standard

    Date:
    1 May 1990
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (14 February 1990) EOR31D, the EAT rules that in order to determine whether a pregnant woman has been discriminated against on grounds of sex, her treatment must be compared to that which would be accorded to a man in comparable circumstances.