header-logo header-logo

16 December 2016 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7727 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Food for thought

Charles Pigott reports on an airline’s refusal to accommodate breastfeeding cabin crew being discriminatory

  • An employment tribunal has upheld indirect discrimination claims brought by two cabin crew members because of easyJet’s refusal to accommodate breastfeeding by shortening shifts.
  • It also upheld claims from both women for pay while suspended from work on maternity grounds.

An employment tribunal has recently ruled on claims brought by two cabin crew members who wished to continue breastfeeding their children after returning from maternity leave: McFarlane and Ambacher v easyJet Airline Company Limited Bristol ET 1401496/2015.

Both women wanted to return to their previous duties at the end of their maternity leave. Following advice from their GPs, they both asked for their shifts to be limited to eight hours. There were no suitable facilities for expressing milk on the aircraft and both doctors independently advised that having to work longer shifts would increase the risk of developing mastitis.

The tribunal’s judgment gives a relatively brief account of the evidence, but it seems that easyJet’s refusal to agree to the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

DWF—five appointments

DWF—five appointments

DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll