Eversheds to fight employment tribunal bias ruling
National firm Eversheds last week lodged an appeal against an Employment Tribunal ruling that it must pay £123,300 in compensation to a male associate who suffered sexual discrimination during the firm’s 2009 redundancy programme.
The tribunal found that former real estate associate John de Belin was treated less favourably than another associate who was on maternity leave when he was selected for redundancy.
Eversheds’ redundancy programme was based on a points system judged against certain criteria. One criterion, which carried a maximum of two points, judged potential redundancy candidates on how quickly they achieved payment for work during a certain timeframe. A woman colleague of de Belin was automatically awarded the maximum two points for this on the grounds that she was not available to be assessed. Eversheds considered that it would have been open to a discrimination claim from her had it not awarded maximum points.
De Belin received only half a point for lock-up, giving him 27 points against the woman’s 27.5 when the final points were counted. He was selected for redundancy and took his case to the tribunal.
An Eversheds spokesman said the firm would appeal the decision on the basis that the Sexual Discrimination Act excludes maternity from being taken into account when comparing the treatment of men and women.
Comments
Redundancy where maternity is a consideration.
Unless I have misread this article, it seems that Eversheds, when considering which employee(s) to make redundant, did specifically take into account the female employee's absence from work while she was on maternity leave.
The law states that where a redundancy situation arises and the employer has a suitable vacancy, the employer must offer it to the employee who is absent on ordinary or additional maternity leave in preference to any other mployee who is similarly affected by the redundancy situation but who is not absent on maternity leave: Regulation 10, Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999, SI.1999/3312.
2(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 refers to the previous sections being s.1 and s.2; i.e. direct and indirect sex discrimination. Section 2(2) states that '... no account shall be taken of special treatment afforded to women in connection with pregnancy or childbirth.' The employee in question at the time of the redundancy was neither pregnant nor giving birth to a child but, instead, was on maternity leave.
what poor management
Perhaps we could look at this as another example of:
PARTNERS WITH POOR MANAGEMENT SKILLS PANIC, FAIL TO ASSESS TRUE COSTS OF LAYOFFS
What are the odds the idiot partners at this firm won't save a cent from the layoffs once you factor in the costs, including post layoff departures by survivors who want to get the hell out of that dump, and the reputational damage?
I encourage anyone who has been laid off by this TTT to file an employment discrimination suit (assuming your claim isn't frivolous).
Honestly, what was this
Honestly, what was this poorly managed dump of a law firm thinking? If they weren't too busy panicking they would have known what they were doing in this case was arbitrary and idiotic. They must've just hoped that they wouldn't be sued and no one would ever know how the victims were chosen.
This is why firms won't tell people how they choose their victims. Anyone who thinks they may have an employment claim against their layoffer should file a lawsuit. That's the only way you're going to find out for sure. And if you signed the waiver? Fuck it, there are ways to get around that.
Whether Eversheds is sexist
Whether Eversheds is sexist against men, women, or both, you have to doubt their managerial competence!
Was this basically their layoffs cost/benefit analysis?
1) layoffs
2) ????
3) profit