header-logo header-logo

01 May 2008
Issue: 7319 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Sex shock

In Brief

Most UK bosses discriminate against female job applicants that they know intend to start a family, new research from the Employment Law Advisory Services reveals. The study shows over 75% of managers would not take on a woman if they knew she intended to become pregnant within six months of starting a job. Indeed, some even asked candidates during interviews if they plan to begin a family—even though this is banned under sex discrimination law: 52% of managers admitted weighing up the chances of a candidate getting pregnant, considering factors such as a woman’s age and marital status.

Issue: 7319 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment , Commercial
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll