An attempt by Eversheds to appeal an Employment Tribunal ruling finding the firm guilty of sex discrimination against an ex-associate has been dismissed.

The judgment from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) issued yesterday (6 April) dismissed Eversheds' appeal on liability – standing by the original decision, delivered in March 2010, that Eversheds unfairly chose former Leeds real estate associate John de Belin for redundancy over a female colleague on maternity leave.

Despite dismissing the firm's appeal on liability, the EAT judgment upheld Eversheds' appeal on de Belin's compensation payout, originally set at £123,053.03.

A different tribunal will now reconsider the compensation, taking into account the fact that two of the five members of the team into which de Belin would have been moved, had he not been made redundant, were laid off nine months later – including his former co-worker.

The judgment said: "For the avoidance of doubt, the only issue to be remitted is whether the claimant's claim for loss of earnings should be capped or discounted by reference to the chance that he would, if retained, have been dismissed in the September 2009 redundancy exercise."

De Belin was made redundant in February 2009. He successfully claimed that he had been unfairly selected for redundancy over another associate who was on maternity leave at the time of the consultation.

When deciding which of the two associates would be laid off, Eversheds scored both against various performance criteria, including the length of time between undertaking the work and the receipt of payment. Because the female associate was on maternity leave at the measurement date, Eversheds accorded her the maximum score for this – giving her enough points to avoid redundancy.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Eversheds said: "The firm stands by the decisions it took with respect to the treatment of women on maternity leave, which it believes is consistent with its obligations under EU and UK law."

Beachcroft diversity and discrimination head Rachel Dineley said the case could be a landmark decision for maternity rights.

She said: "In the current economic climate, with many employers engaged in the difficult exercise of determining who should be selected for redundancy, this decision is a salutary reminder of the need to take a fair and balanced approach, while catering for those in a special positions, such as those who are pregnant, on maternity leave or substantially disadvantaged by a disability."

Eversheds was represented by John Cavanagh QC of 11 King's Bench Walk, while De Belin was represented by Simon Popplewell of Gough Square Chambers.