I don't really understand this - but here is an extract from a legal article on this:
In vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment
Decisions from the ECJ and EAT have provided some clarity on the protection provided to employees who are undergoing IVF treatment (for an outline of which, see ). The current position, endorsed by the Employment Statutory Code of Practice, produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) (the EHRC Code), is that:
•When a woman is undergoing IVF treatment, a protected period starts when fertilised ova are implanted (when she is regarded as being pregnant). When an implantation fails, and the pregnancy ends, the protected period ends after a further two weeks have elapsed in accordance with section 18(6) of the EqA 2010. If an employer treats an employee unfavourably during this period she can claim pregnancy and maternity discrimination (see Practice note, Pregnancy and maternity discrimination (EqA 2010)).
•In addition, a woman undergoing IVF treatment will be protected for an additional, albeit limited, period of time before implantation. This is the time it takes for ova to be collected, fertilised and for the "immediate" implantation of the fertilised ova thereafter. An employer that treats an employee less favourably because she is undergoing IVF treatment is likely to be found to have discriminated against her because of sex (see Practice note, Sex discrimination (EqA 2010)).
In Mayr v Bäckerei und Konditorei Gerhard Flöckner OHG C-506/06 [2008] IRLR 387, the ECJ held that:
•Article 10 of the Pregnant Workers Directive, which prohibits the dismissal of pregnant workers other than for reasons "not connected with their condition", did not extend to a female worker who was undergoing IVF treatment where, on the date she was given notice of dismissal, her ova had been fertilized but not implanted. At this point in time she was not pregnant.
•However, Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of the Equal Treatment Directive prohibited the dismissal of a female worker who was at an advanced stage of IVF treatment (that is, from the time that her ova were collected until fertilised ova were implanted) where her dismissal was essentially based on the fact that she was undergoing that treatment. The ECJ specifically rejected this period applying to a long period between the freezing of fertilised ova with a view to implanting at a later date.
For further information, see Legal update, ECJ: dismissal of female worker for receiving IVF treatment can amount to sex discrimination.
The EAT in Sahota v Home Office and Pipkin UKEAT/0342/09 applied the ECJ's decision in Mayr which, it held, had been deliberately narrow. There was a limited and closely defined period of protection for a woman undergoing IVF treatment: the "important" stage "between the follicular puncture and the immediate transfer of the in vitro fertilised ova". (See Legal update, Sex discrimination: protection during IVF treatment.)
The EHRC Code recommends that employers treat requests for time off for IVF treatment "sympathetically" and that employers may wish to establish procedures for allowing time off for IVF and fertility treatment. These procedures may enable women to notify designated members of staff on a confidential basis that they are having treatment (paragraph 17.2.9). The Code also suggests that less favourable treatment of a woman because she is undergoing IVF is likely to be sex discrimination even though it would not amount to pregnancy discrimination until the point at which the embryos were implanted (paragraphs 8.44 and 17.2.8).