header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
16 December 2016 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7727 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Food for thought

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll