UK Employment Hub 

We blogged in June last year about the employment tribunal claim of Ali -v- Capita Customer Management Ltd where Mr Ali was successful in his claim for direct sex discrimination.  Female employees at Capita were entitled to 14 weeks’ full pay on maternity leave whereas fathers were only entitled to two weeks’ full pay on paternity and shared parental leave.  Mr Ali’s wife was advised to return to work early from maternity leave after being diagnosed with post natal depression.  Mr Ali asked Capita whether he could take leave instead and was told he could take shared parental leave on statutory pay.  The Tribunal found that this was direct sex discrimination.

The EAT disagreed and yesterday overturned the decision of the Tribunal.  They found that maternity pay is inextricably linked to the reason for maternity leave which is the health and wellbeing of a woman in pregnancy and following childbirth.  That is not comparable with a man on shared parental leave.  The correct comparator is a woman on shared parental leave.  Parents of either sex could take shared parental leave on the same terms so there was no direct sex discrimination.

Employers across the country will be breathing a collective sigh of relief following this decision.  It remains to be seen whether the case is appealed further but, in the meantime, this is reassuring for those employers who do not enhance pay for paternity or shared parental leave in the same way as maternity leave.

Fathers must be given drastically improved rights or the Government’s shared parental leave policy risks failing entirely, experts have warned.

The policy, three years old this week, is meant to allow fathers to be more involved in their children’s early years and mothers to return to the workplace sooner.

But the latest official estimates suggest that as little as 2pc of eligible parents have so far taken up the offer, with a lack of awareness and equal pay issues being blamed.

Read more here – https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/could-paying-dads-stay-home-turn-round-failing-shared-parental/

It’s been a busy few weeks for judgments; we round up the most recent discrimination cases:

When is cancer a disability?

What happens if an employer does not know an employee is pregnant when deciding to dismiss her but finds out before the dismissal takes effect?

Was forfeiture of LTIP awards unlawful age discrimination?

Click here to read the round up.

In this issue we look at some of the key employment law developments that have been taking place over the past month. In our case law review we take a look at ‘deemed disabilities’ under the Equality Act following a recent EAT judgment. We also look at what happens if an employer does not know an employee is pregnant when deciding to dismiss but finds out before the dismissal takes effect. The impact of the new taxation of termination payments coming into force from 6 April 2018 and the sponsor licence reporting process to be mindful of when involved in mergers and acquisitions are also covered.

https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/newsletters/2018/march/29/uk-employment-law-roundup/uk-employment-law-round-up-march-2018

2018 is a momentous year, in that it marks 100 years since British women were given the right to vote. Things have moved on a bit since 1918, and we can safely say that there have been many positive developments since then aimed at addressing the issue of gender inequality in the workplace.

Yet here we are, in this historic centenary year, reading daily accounts of high-profile cases of sex discrimination and harassment. Take, for example, the BBC “not doing equal pay” and the sexual harassment allegations arising from the notorious Presidents Club dinner. Inequality in the workplace remains a real issue, and against that backdrop one key question needs to be considered: are the UK’s sex discrimination laws still fit for purpose?

This was the question that the Fawcett Society (the UK’s leading charity campaigning for gender equality and women’s rights), together with a panel of legal and policy experts, was recently tasked with answering. Following a nine-month review, the Society has now made a number of recommendations on the following topics.

Read more here

The European Court of Justice (CJEU) has held, in the recent case of Otero Ramos v Servicio Galego de Saude, that failure to conduct an appropriate risk assessment for a breastfeeding employee amounts to sex discrimination.

The employee in this case was an accident and emergency nurse who had made a request for an adjustment to her working pattern on account of her breastfeeding. Her concerns included the complex shift rotation system, exposure to ionising radiation, healthcare-associated infections and stress. She requested an adjusted shift pattern and preventative measures to be implemented. Her employer issued a report stating that her work did not pose any risk to her breastfeeding her child and rejected her request for an adjustment to her working conditions.

The employee filed a claim for sex discrimination against her employer, alleging that the risk assessment carried out by her employer did not comply with the requirements of EU law which provides measures to improve health and safety for pregnant and breastfeeding workers. The CJEU found that the employer had failed to perform an individual assessment of the employee’s circumstances, as required under the legislation, and rather it had conducted an assessment of the employee’s role as an accident and emergency nurse.

Accordingly, the CJEU held that failure to properly assess the risk posed by the work of a breastfeeding worker in accordance with the requirements of EU law must be regarded as less favourable treatment and constitutes direct sex discrimination.