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

[stumbledin]

“It means everything knowing that others also believed in me and my strength in staying dedicated to my journey for justice,” she said. “I truly hope that in the future other working mothers won’t be discriminated against for having caring responsibilities; especially those that care for disabled children.”

Jane van Zyl, the chief executive of Working Families, who gave evidence to the tribunal, said losing the case would have represented “a huge step backwards for women’s workplace rights”.

www.theguardian.com/money/2021/jun/23/nhs-nurse-sacked-over-weekend-working-wins-landmark-case

So now it is enshrined in law that women are the main carers of children?

I dont see why this was bought under sex discrimination and surprised Working Families didn't fight it as a parents rights issue.

It doesn't matter the sex or parental status of the colleagues.

The ruling was on indirect discrimination, which means a criterion, policy or practice that puts people of the protected characteristic (in this case, sex) at a disadvantage and which cannot be objectively justified. So even if everyone was in the same position as her the case would have gone the same way because it is indirect discrimination.

I dont see why this was bought under sex discrimination and surprised Working Families didn't fight it as a parents rights issue.

I would assume they did that because sex is a protected characteristic but being a parent isn't. Therefore if they'd fought the tribunal on the basis of "parent's rights" they presumably wouldn't have had a case. (NB: I am not a lawyer so this might be wrong.)

Also while I agree we should push back against the disproportionate caring responsibilities women have, it would be damaging not to recognise the status quo. If we said the law couldn’t recognise the actual disadvantage women face because they shouldn’t have to face it, it would take away one of the legal protections women have in not being discriminated against because of their current caring situation.

If a policy disproportionately affects one sex and not the other, its sex discrimination - even if the fact that one sex is more affected is in itself proof of inequality.
The Equality Act can only tackle the specific example of discrimination in the workplace, not in society as a whole.

@Tuberoses

If the job has changed then it’s changed 🤷‍♀️

If the old job is gone and you can’t work the hours of the new job then I presume you’d just be made redundant.

This is what should happen but pushing someone out by making things difficult is a cheaper and quicker option. I've seen it happen to several colleagues and most people just leave or find other jobs.

Have now had time to hear a bit more about this case, so as has been mentioned this was about altering an existing contract. ie I dont hink they were ending the role she has, but just wanted her to work different days.

But in fact this isn't about "childcare" this is about someone who is the carer of 2 people (age is immaterial) with special needs.

So it isn't even about (for example) is there a creche or nursery open at weekends. This is about having someone available to provide specialist care to two members of her family with two different conditions.

And again, even though I suspect at a young age the mother is more likely to care for babies or toddles with special needs, the last statistics I saw for carers, there were nearly as many male as female carers.

I am glad she has won, but it seems to be a victory based on playing up to stereotypes, not even the reality.

I find it all very odd.

It's pretty straightforward. Her claim against her former employer is based on indirect sex discrimination, ie they implemented a rule that would adversely affect more women than men. That is because far more women than men have caring responsibilities.

Personally I don't think employers should just be able to change the terms of a contract willy-nilly like that, but apparently they can, so the only case she had against them was on the basis of indirect sex discrimination.

If a policy disproportionately affects one sex and not the other, its sex discrimination - even if the fact that one sex is more affected is in itself proof of inequality.

Nicely put.

Personally I don't think employers should just be able to change the terms of a contract willy-nilly like that, but apparently they can, so the only case she had against them was on the basis of indirect sex discrimination.

No, they can't. She could also claim breach of contract and/or resign and claim constructive dismissal on the basis of the change in contract undermining her trust and confidence in the employer.

She may have also claimed these, there may be some reason she couldn't, and she may not have wanted to resign. But indirect sex discrimination is not the only claim she could bring.

this was about altering an existing contract. ie I dont hink they were ending the role she has, but just wanted her to work different days.

Nope. If you change the days that fundamentally changes the role to the extent that it no longer exists and a new role, on different days, is created. That is a redundancy situation.

I find it all very odd.

It's really not. Your protestations are very strange. It's lucky we have lawyers and judges to interpret and uphold the law

VanGoghsDog - you are wrong on two counts. Her existing work days did not end. They just wanted her to be flexible and work some weekends.

And by the way I would hope her union would argue that she had established a work pattern.

And seriously, everyone seems to want to go out of there way to say this is so precious, having women acknowledged to be traped as main child carers.

I am pointing out that if you actually bothered to read up on the case it isn't about "child care". It is about need special care for 2 dependents with special needs.

I totally support cases about sex discrimination, but this was about who cares for dependents with special needs. It has nothing to do with childcare.

Disability rights are important. This should have been a test case about social care provision.

Everyone seems to think if they endlessly intone women do most of the child care (doh - who doesn't know that) then they can avoid the issues that both working families and those putting forward the case put to one side.

But hey, lets ignore the rights of people with disabilities and their carers, apparently for no other reason than its just not possible to admit that maybe you haven't bothered to read up on issue was actually about.

The fact that legal representatives thought it easier to argue on the basis of stereotypes about women rather than for disability rights is nothing to be celebrated.

Social care provision is not a matter for employers.

I never even mentioned child care so I'm not sure why your throwing that at me. And it was you who said her work days had changed.

You're tying yourself in knots trying to prove.....well, it's really not clear what you are trying to prove. This is a good case outcome for women.

Re the disability issue - the employee was not disabled. Or rather, that was not the case brought.

So it would be disability discrimination by association.
And we know this was not DIRECT discrimination, because it was a 'provision or criterion' etc.
There is no concept of indirect disability discrimination by association as far as I know.

The lawyers can't decide to argue where no law exists! They can't just make up new law.