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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll