Important indirect sex discrimination case for working mothers

[justicewomen]

Important ind discrim claim re working mothers

littletonchambers.com/mo-sethi-qc-sophia-berry-and-bianca-balmelli-secure-landmark-pro-bono-appeal-victory-for-working-mothers/

[ErrolTheDragon]

Good - rather astonishing it had to go to appeal, I'd have thought. Good thing there were some lawyers working pro bono on this too.

[GrownUpBeans]

I don't like the implication that women should have more responsibility for their children than men.

"The EAT held that the tribunal should have taken judicial notice of the fact that women, because of their childcare responsibilities, were less likely to be able to accommodate certain working patterns than men."

[AssassinatedBeauty]

I don't read it as saying women should have more responsibility for their children than men, rather that it recognising the reality that women generally do have more caring responsibilities than men.

[Thelnebriati]

How did the employer get away with changing contracts in the first place?

Many people are unable to apply for jobs that are 'as and when' for various reasons. Employers should have to offer some jobs with fixed hour and pay contracts, especially at entry level.

[CardinalLolzy]

Would be interested to read about this in full - hopefully I can later!

[OvaHere]

Glad she eventually won. It's interesting that the term 'introducing flexible working' makes it sound like it's a positive thing for employees but clearly that isn't always the case.

I agree the reality is that women are disproportionately responsible for childcare. Perhaps this woman is a single parent which is why she couldn't work weekends in addition to having two disabled children.

[Wallpapering]

Am surprised but not as heard a lot of others having employers doing this as means of trying to get around paying more for weekend staff.

Friend ended up leaving her job as unpleasant co-workers who were employed on new contact which included weekend shift rota whereas they couldn’t change hers her contact hours still stood.

They knew she had two disabled children that needed extra care but tried to moving goal post to push her out.

[GrownUpBeans]

I don't read it as saying women should have more responsibility for their children than men, rather that it recognising the reality that women generally do have more caring responsibilities than men.

But does it mean that it would have been okay to dismiss a man in the same circumstances (main carer for disabled children)?

[GrownUpBeans]

Perhaps this woman is a single parent which is why she couldn't work weekends in addition to having two disabled children.

The judgement mentions a husband who is able to help at weekends.

[AssassinatedBeauty]

"But does it mean that it would have been okay to dismiss a man in the same circumstances (main carer for disabled children)?"

In my understanding as not a lawyer, the ruling is because women are disproportionately affected by caring responsibilities. This company wide policy of shifting all contracts to "flexible" shifts including compulsory weekend work would therefore disproportionately affect women more than men.

Perhaps a man in similar circumstances might have different grounds for a court case, rather than on the grounds of sex.

[GrownUpBeans]

They knew she had two disabled children that needed extra care but tried to moving goal post to push her out.

I think having disabled children should count for indirect discrimination. But apparently not, you need to be disabled yourself for it to be relevant.

[ErrolTheDragon]

I think having disabled children should count for indirect discrimination. But apparently not, you need to be disabled yourself for it to be relevant.

Maybe 'carer' should be a protected characteristic. Not sure how it would work but it seems like a group who do suffer direct discrimination.

[Nightbear]

Just found this after seeing the article I’m the Guardian. I’m really pleased with the result.

[GrownUpBeans]

Maybe 'carer' should be a protected characteristic. Not sure how it would work but it seems like a group who do suffer direct discrimination.

That's a good idea. I'm glad the lady won her case, but the reasons seem so convoluted. Direct protection for carers would be much simpler.