Parents have welcomed the tribunal’s decision in favor of a mother whose employer refused to remove her daughter from the nursery soon.
Estate agent Alice Thompson has won 185 185,000 from an employment tribunal that ruled that her former employer’s actions amounted to indirect sexual discrimination.
Returning to work after having a baby in 2018, Ellis requested a change in her working hours – including ending at 6:00 pm and working five days a week instead of five.
But his manager said he could not afford to work part-time.
The tribunal ruled in favor of the tribunal, which ruled in favor of Ms. Thomson. He was given a cash reward for reduced earnings, reduced pension contributions, hurt feelings and interest.
We shared the details of our case. Manchester Family Facebook page, where mom told us that working parents need more flexibility and many people have shared their accounts of discrimination – or being the victim of a company restructuring that put them out of work Is.
“Great,” Helen Furby said of the decision. “Women are often punished for having children in the workplace or choosing between their careers or their families.”
“A lot of working mothers are discriminated against,” said Samantha Ellis Hughes. “This has happened to me twice! All mothers must fight for themselves.”
What about payment? Have you ever refused to work flexibly? Do you think employers are getting better at offering flexible work to parents? Let us know your thoughts in the comments..
Rachel Nolan said she too was fired from her job. She said: “When I tried to go back to my first job, I was told I could go back the way I was going. Or not at all. I went back again. After I had my second child, I knew I couldn’t possibly keep the same hours, so I didn’t even bother to talk about what I just gave up.
Felicity Fleming added: “I agree that I was asked to leave my previous job 15 minutes early to get home for the nursery even though I worked every day during my lunch and I refused. It was done and my husband couldn’t do it. Day. My current employers are amazing. “
Daniel Ires is a Stockport-based Governors solicitor and specializes in maternity discrimination and family-friendly rights.
She says the tribunal’s decision “shows the importance of real and appropriate consideration of employers’ flexible work applications.”
“The way flexible legislation is enacted means that it’s often easier for employers to say ‘no’ – a lot of people take an empty approach to ‘no flexibility’ – and then In support of their decision, they give one of the “fair reasons” for rejecting the application, such as the “detrimental effect on the customer’s ability to meet customer demand” given by the company here.
“The case highlights that it is not enough for employers to pick and choose one of these reasons – instead they need to turn their attention to whether they are being asked what they are being asked to do. This may include – and if not, consider an alternative that they can offer to help the employee.
“Failure to do so could result in not only discriminatory claims, but also constructive dismissal claims that can be costly.”
Ms Thompson said she was encouraged to take up the legal challenge to bring about immediate change, adding: “How is a mother to have a career and a family? It’s not 2021 but 1971.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Women’s Hour, she said: “I’ve got a daughter and I didn’t want her to do that for 20 or 30 years, when she was at work. ۔ “
He acknowledged that the case was “at great financial cost” and said there was a danger that not all new parents would agree.
In cases of loss and discrimination, employees may bring in employees who are still employed, but in cases of unfair and constructive dismissal, they may have left the job to take action. Ms Ayres says she is a barrier to many parents who find themselves accepting unfair conditions because they cannot afford to be out of work.