Is this a double edged victory for women - judge says childcare obligations of femal employees must be taken into account

I hope it leads to employers having to offer fixed contracts as standard, so as not to discriminate against people who have caring responsibilities because this is a real issue for single parents and disabled people on benefits.
We've been discriminated against for decades, we are not permitted to apply for 'as and when' jobs when returning to work but you can only ask employers for a fixed hours and pay contract.

And the fact that through this double standard have now got it enshrined in law that because men cant be trust to be an equal parent then we better make allowances for mothers.

This isn’t what the ruling says at all. It is simply taking account of the factual reality that women are more likely to be carers than men. There is no judgment, positive or negative of this fact, and no indication that women ‘should’ be primary carers. Just an acknowledgment that they more commonly are.

I just dont understand how it was accepted as sex discrimination.

The ruling is on quite a narrow point of law. The tribunal hasn’t been asked to determine how caring responsibilities ought to interact with flexible working policies across the board. It has been asked to determine whether having a flexible working policy that requires occasional weekend work is, as a matter of fact, discriminatory to women.

The answer has been determined to be yes, because as a matter of fact women are more likely than men to have caring responsibilities. That obviously doesn’t mean men never have those responsibilities, or that they can’t be negatively effected by flexible working policies. It simply means that as a matter of fact, women are more likely to experience harm as a result of the policy than men, because as a matter of fact women are more likely to be carers than men.

Tribunals can only rule on the specific question referred to them. They can’t determine whether a policy should take into account any parent’s caring responsibilities if that’s not what they have been asked. In this case, they were essentially asked ‘does this policy operate to discriminate against women?’, and the answer is ‘yes’.

stumbledin the reasons for racial or homophobic discrimination are sometimes glossed over by wealth and social class (mainly wealth) the same goes for sexual discrimination. Just because ten percent of a category manage to escape discrimination doesn't mean that the category aren't discriminated against. The sexual class who bear children are the sexual class usually discriminated against because they bear and consequently care disproportionately for children. That's what sexual discrimination boils down to - biology.

It's sex discrimination because it simply would not happen to a man.

In the end the difference between nen and women is the fact that women are the sex class who become pregnant and give birth. Everything stems from that and anyone denying that that is the core of all sexual discrimination is either deluded or has an agenda to deflect.

Anyone not determined to be disingenuous knows that reproductive biology is the root of sexual discrimination.

I wouldn't say it enshrines in law that mother's are to be the main carers, but it backs up societies norms. Women are viewed as primary carers.

How many of us women have the school ring us first for a bump or fall rather than dad. I know it's happened to me.

How many of us take time off to take children to hospital appointments or dentist appointments.

Generally because a wage inequality women are in the lesser paid jobs, so we get the shit end of both stocks less pay in our careers and more at home reaponisbility.

Now I'm not saying that's right, and there's still so much to change. But society at present views mother's as the primary carers, so perhaps a bit of legal protection whilst society shifts slowly to shared parental responsibility isn't such a bad thing.

I’m puzzled by the case as a whole. She wasn’t able to do the job because she wasn’t available to work the required hours due to her care responsibilities. Not due to her biological sex.

No, that's not how I understand it. The court said an employer cannot just assume that what works for men and some women, works for all women. And that the reality of women's lives must be taken into account. That's because it continues to be a fact that more women than men have caring responsibilities. Not that they should have them, just that they do.