There is a fine line between protection & unfairness in sex discrimination cases, says Peter Breakey
The decision in Eversheds v De Belin (UKEAT, heard on 1 and 2 December 2010) will be welcomed by those who are exasperated by what they perceive as the often unfair consequences of the “equalities agenda”. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has made it clear that although women who are pregnant or are on maternity leave may be entitled to more favourable treatment than their colleagues, any such treatment must not go beyond what is reasonably necessary. If the favourable treatment is disproportionate, a male employee who is adversely affected will have grounds for a sex discrimination claim.
Maximum marks
In 2009 Eversheds needed to make an associate lawyer redundant. There were two associates in the relevant team, De Belin and a woman, who was on maternity leave. Selection was based on their total scores across a range of performance criteria but, because of her absence, it was impossible to assess the woman associate on one particular element. Adopting its then standard policy, Eversheds awarded her the maximum mark
