Eversheds sex discrimination appeal rejected by employment tribunal
Eversheds has seen its attempt to appeal an Employment Tribunal ruling finding the firm guilty of sex discrimination against a former male associate dismissed. A 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.
April 07, 2011 at 07:09 AM
3 minute read
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.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGibson Dunn Leads as Hollywood Duo Sell Minority Stake in Wrexham AFC
2 minute readAustralian Senator Accuses PwC International of Inhibiting Accountability
5 minute readDrew & Napier Class-Action Claimants Accept Omni Bridgeway Funding for $250M Claim Against Swiss Government
Hogan Lovells Paris Arbitration Partner Moves to Kennedys in International Push
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250