We round up four recent employment tribunal decisions where employers' actions have resulted in pregnancy and maternity discrimination claims and provide practical tips on how to reduce the risks of similar claims.
Many proposed employment law changes that the Government has put forward in the last few years have stalled, mainly as a result of the focus on Brexit and the coronavirus pandemic. Which proposals could be resurrected in 2021 and what would they mean for employers?
In Taylor-Hamieh v The Ritz Hotel Casino Ltd, an employment tribunal held that a redundancy exercise that effectively ruled a pregnant employee out of an available role in the Middle East was discriminatory. The tribunal's £50,121 award included £25,000 for injury to feelings.
In Aramark (UK) Ltd v Fernandes, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employer's failure to put a redundant employee on a list of bank workers was not unreasonable, within the meaning of s.98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Government is pressing ahead with plans to extend the period during which pregnant employees and new parents are entitled to be offered any suitable alternative vacancy if they are being made redundant. We look at how the law will change and the headaches that the amendments could cause for employers.
In George v London Borough of Brent, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the employer's failure to comply with a contractual obligation to offer a redundant employee a trial period for a possible alternative role was likely to render the dismissal unfair.
The materials and information included in the XpertHR service are provided for reference purposes only. They are not intended either as a substitute for professional advice or judgment or to provide legal or other advice with respect to particular circumstances. Use of the service is subject to our terms and conditions.