header-logo header-logo

Food for thought

16 December 2016 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7727 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Charles Pigott reports on an airline’s refusal to accommodate breastfeeding cabin crew being discriminatory

  • An employment tribunal has upheld indirect discrimination claims brought by two cabin crew members because of easyJet’s refusal to accommodate breastfeeding by shortening shifts.
  • It also upheld claims from both women for pay while suspended from work on maternity grounds.

An employment tribunal has recently ruled on claims brought by two cabin crew members who wished to continue breastfeeding their children after returning from maternity leave: McFarlane and Ambacher v easyJet Airline Company Limited Bristol ET 1401496/2015.

Both women wanted to return to their previous duties at the end of their maternity leave. Following advice from their GPs, they both asked for their shifts to be limited to eight hours. There were no suitable facilities for expressing milk on the aircraft and both doctors independently advised that having to work longer shifts would increase the risk of developing mastitis.

The tribunal’s judgment gives a relatively brief account of the evidence, but it seems that easyJet’s refusal to agree to the requests was due to two main factors.

  • There was a
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

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll