De Belin v Eversheds Legal Services Ltd – Employment Tribunal
The Case
B was an associate solicitor employed in the Real Estate department at Eversheds (E), a firm of solicitors. In 2008 it was decided that redundancies needed to be made in the Real Estate group. B and one other solicitor, who was on maternity leave, R, were scored against a range of redundancy criteria and were put into the redundancy pool.
One of the performance criteria against which they were scored was "lock up". This financial efficiency measure consisted of the sum of work in progress and debtor days measured as at 31 July 2008. R was on maternity leave on this date and consequently no lock up figure was available for her. She was awarded the maximum score for this criterion, which was 2 points. The inclusion of this notional score meant that her total final score was 0.5 higher than that of B (she scored 27.5, whereas he scored 27), and B was dismissed for redundancy.
B brought a claim for sex discrimination. He alleged that if R had been assessed based on her last working day, she would have scored only 0.5, meaning that she would have been selected for redundancy. E said that it had approached the lock up criterion in what it considered to be the fairest possible way, and to avoid any potential discrimination claims from a woman on maternity leave.
The SDA prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, excluding any special treatment afforded to women in connection with pregnancy or childbirth.
The Decision
The Tribunal held that B had been discriminated against on grounds of his sex, and that he had been unfairly dismissed. The use of the lock up criterion to assess for redundancy was in this case unreasonable since R's lock up score had been unfairly inflated.
What Does It Mean For You?
This decision involves balancing competing rights within the SDA, namely the principle of equal treatment and the special treatment to be afforded to pregnant women. Employers should not assume that treating a female employee who is pregnant or on maternity leave more favourably is automatically the safest option. Instead, employers should objectively and fairly explore methods by which any perceived negative impact caused by an employee's maternity absence can be dealt with, bearing in mind the rights of other workers.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.