header-logo header-logo

Unfair dismissal: protecting your brood

29 March 2018 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7787 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail
nlj_7787_pigott

Anomalies persist in the protection of pregnant women against dismissal, as Charles Pigott explains

  • According to current domestic case law, pregnant women continue to enjoy weaker protection while still at work compared to those already on maternity leave.
  • An opportunity to address this anomaly at a EU level was recently passed up by the European Court of Justice.

In Really Easy Car Credit v Thompson UKEAT 0197/17/0301 (unreported) the Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that an employer must have actual knowledge of an employee’s pregnancy for a claim for pregnancy-related automatically unfair dismissal to succeed. It has also reiterated the orthodox position that an employer is not obliged to revisit a decision to dismiss once it becomes of aware of the pregnancy.

Domestic law

Leaving aside the provisions of the Equality Act relating to maternity and sex discrimination, the relevant law applying in Britain can be found in a combination of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) and the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/3312) (MPL).

Under regulation

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll