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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll