This case is a prime example of the problems that can occur in a workplace when a member of staff is undergoing IVF treatment in a bid to get pregnant.
Joanne Magill, associate, and Claire Benson and Ceri Hughes, managing associates, at Addleshaw Goddard detail the latest rulings.
In Kulikaoskas v Macduff Shellfish and another EATS/0062/09 & EATS/0063/09, the EAT held that an employee who claimed that he was dismissed because of his partner's pregnancy was unable to bring a claim of associative discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
In Johal v Equality and Human Rights Commission EAT/0541/09, the EAT held that the employer's failure to inform an employee on maternity leave of a job vacancy was not an act of sex discrimination.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 does not prohibit associative pregnancy discrimination, and that the issue does not require a reference to the European Court of Justice.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that, on the facts of the case, an employer did not commit sex discrimination against an employee on maternity leave when an administrative error meant that she was not informed of a job vacancy.
This week's case of the week, provided by Charles Russell, covers pregnancy-related sex discrimination.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to pregnancy or maternity discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.