Anyone know if there is a legal rulling about not comparing pregnancy to ill-health re workplace discrimination?

[edam]

This is for my sister, a student nurse - she's appealing to a benefits tribunal, complicated but essentially student nurses who get pregnant are left destitute, not entitled to NHS bursary during maternity leave, but not entitled to benefits either.

One of the arguments used in initial hearing (which she lost) was that pregnancy is like illness, and students who get ill are treated in the same way (shocking in itself). But I have a vague memory that there is a legal principle that you can't compare pregnancy to ill health - for instance, you can sack someone for being ill if they can't perform their job, but you can't sack someone for being pregnant.

Am I imagining it or do any MNrs know if such a ruling exists and where I could track it down?

Thank you!

Try looking up a case with somebody vs Rentokil. Its sex discrimination i believe.

Will try and look for you.

It's in Brown v Rentokil [1998] IRLR 445 ECJ.

This is from the EOC website:

Issue
Whether the SDA and/or Equal Treatment Directive protect a female worker against dismissal on the grounds of absence due to pregnancy related illness.
Facts
B was employed as a service driver by R Ltd. In August 1990 she became pregnant. She was absent with pregnancy related illnesses from 16 August 1990 until her dismissal in February 1991. R dismissed B in accordance with its working rule that any employee absent on sick leave for more than 26 continuous weeks would be dismissed.
B brought a claim for discrimination on the grounds of sex.
The House of Lords referred questions to the ECJ.
Held (ECJ)
The dismissal of a female worker on account of pregnancy constitutes direct discrimination, as it can only affect women.
During pregnancy complications and disorders may arise, causing a woman to be unable to work. These risks are inherent in the condition of pregnancy and are therefore a specific feature of that condition and cannot be distinguished from the pregnancy itself. The dismissal of a female worker at any time during her pregnancy because of incapacity for work as a result of a pregnancy related illness constitutes direct discrimination.
However, where a pregnancy related illness arises after the end of maternity leave, as was the case in Hertz, a woman is no longer automatically protected against dismissal. In that situation the only question to be considered is whether a male worker with the same absences under the same conditions, would also have been dismissed. If a male worker would have been treated in the same way, there is no discrimination on grounds of sex. In comparing the absences and making the decision to dismiss, an employer must not take into account absences which occurred while the woman was pregnant or on maternity leave.
Where a contractual term provides that an employer may dismiss workers of either sex after a specified period of absence, a woman absent during pregnancy for pregnancy related reasons cannot be compared with a man who is absent for the same period through illness. The application of the contractual term to B whilst she was pregnant therefore constituted direct discrimination on the grounds of sex.
Comment

• The ECJ confirmed that it is sex discrimination to dismiss or treat less favourably a pregnant woman for a pregnancy related reason
• It is unclear at exactly what point the protected period ends and it is arguable that it may extend after return to work, for example if the woman was suffering from a pregnancy related illness on the day leave ended. It may be possible to distinguish Hertz on the grounds that in that case, H's pregnancy related illness did not begin until 6 months after her return to work.
• For an example of how the ECJ's decision in this case works in practice, see Healy -v- Morrison.

Oh, oh, oh will watch this with a great deal of interest.

Similar theme but what about comparing maternity leave to sick leave? It's not the same thing is it? Any cases that are explicit about this?

Brown vs Rentokil see this link

Tinker - check out the Equal Opportunities Commission (where I linked to) its very very informative.

Cheers PP. Have pored over that in the past but am being lazy and wondered if anyone knew of a definitive case.

TBH Tinker, the Brown vs Rentokil one is a pretty good comparison for what you want. Sickness due to pregnancy is unique to women and so cannot be treated as standard "sick leave". Thats the ruling that was made in the B vs R case.

Thank you, that's extraordinarily helpful! In fact, I can't begin to tell you how helpful that is. Sending you both very, very grateful vibes.

No probs Edam (was PP....). I am taking my ex employers to tribunal myself for similar, who happen to also be the aforementioned respondent, at the end of this month. Its very frightening but im glad im going through with it.

Oh sheesh, you'd think they've be a bit more on the ball now, wouldn't you? After being taken to the European Court and everything...

Good luck!

Problem is, they think they are Edam .

Good luck with yours too!

Thanks PP/VVV. Wondered if there was a specific case saying that maternity leave was not comparable to sick leave and rights are affected differently as a result.

There was a policewoman in the last week or so who won a case against her employer - they'd classed her maternity leave as sick leave, wrongly, iirc.

She went back to work and wanted them to change her shifts to family-friendly ones and they got arsey. Her partner was also a policeman. They met at work and she got pregnant quite quickly after she started working there.

Can't remember any more than that though - and not sure if all that's right!

Fab hunker. Have to go now, if anyone knows more, please post details. Please.

Thank you, too, Hunker. Tinker, the police case was in Herts, IIRC. Bet BBC Online will have it.

Hang on.....isnt there an ad at the top of this screen that might be useful ?????/

unfortunately not as this about education/benefits ie students who get pregnant.

Tinker, found it here