Recent legal changes such as the introduction of parental leave coupled with enhanced maternity leave have been viewed as encouraging women in the workforce. Some commentators have suggested that these developments may be a step too far for hard pressed businesses. But is it really a woman’s world - or are women still discriminated against in the workplace?
Certainly many women seem to think that they are not being treated fairly. According to recent statistics, in 1998/99 there were 6,202 applications before Employment Tribunals, alleging sex discrimination. This represents an 80% increase in claims on the previous year and employers need to take notice of this change and mark the risk!
The recent case of Aisling Sykes highlights these issues. Ms Sykes used to be a top executive in the capital markets division of JP Morgan earning £100,000 per year. When she was dismissed from the bank last year she brought claims for unfair dismissal and indirect sex discrimination. She claims that she was sacked because she wanted to spend a few hours a day with her children. This was allegedly equated to "someone wishing to leave work early to play squash." Last week the Employment Tribunal upheld her claim for unfair dismissal but rejected her claim of sex discrimination.
In a decision which seems to go against both the spirit and the letter of current legislation it was reportedly stated that the Tribunal had ruled that employers of highly paid women are able to impose huge demands, regardless of whether they have children. Is it true that the more you earn, the less protection you get?
Women are expressly protected from discrimination on grounds linked to their gender or indeed marital status. Such discriminatory treatment may be direct discrimination or more likely indirect discrimination. A potential example of indirect discrimination would be to deny promotion or select for redundancy on grounds of lack of commitment where that so-called lack of commitment is linked to family or childcare responsibilities. The Sykes case seems to suggest an introduction of a double standard in such claims. This must be of questionable legality.
The importance of one particular case should not be over-exaggerated. It is only an Employment Tribunal decision and therefore is not binding on any future Tribunal cases. Given increasing public awareness and the fact that Tribunals have the power to award unlimited damages in sex discrimination cases, the problem seems unlikely to go away.
The information and opinions contained in this article are provided by Hammond Suddards. They should not be applied to any particular set of facts without appropriate legal or other professional advice.
For further information please contact Catherine Prest, Employment, Hammond Suddards.
