Hogan Lovells London partner ordered to pay £18,000 for dismissing pregnant nanny
Tribunal finds transatlantic firm's Europe high yield head unfairly dismissed nanny
September 18, 2018 at 07:03 AM
2 minute read
A London employment tribunal has ordered Hogan Lovells partner Sylvain Dhennin to pay more than £18,000 in compensation to his former nanny after she successfully claimed she was directly discriminated against and unfairly dismissed because she was pregnant.
London partner Dhennin, who heads Hogan Lovells' high yield practice in Europe, was ordered to pay £18,366.62 damages to the claimant for, among other things, injury to feelings, loss of earnings and loss of maternity pay, after the tribunal described his evidence as "untrue", "confusing", "misleading" and "without foundation".
In January 2017, Dhennin and his wife employed the claimant as a nanny-housekeeper. Her duties primarily revolved around caring for the couple's two children. The judgment indicates the claimant "enjoyed a happy working relationship with the couple".
That September, the claimant told Dhennin that she was pregnant, and the tribunal judgment details how, the previous week, there had been a discussion between his wife and the claimant about her continuing role as a housekeeper once the family moved into a new house.
However, "without warning" Dhennin subsequently handed the claimant a letter of termination confirming her dismissal, arguing her services were no longer required as both children were entering full-time nursery.
The tribunal concluded that both Dhennin's dismissal letter and his response to the claimant's claim form failed on two fronts. First, that it did not acknowledge that both he and his wife knew, on dismissing the claimant, that she was pregnant; and secondly, that Dhennin had made "a deliberate attempt to obscure the fact of the knowledge of the pregnancy".
Dhennin had argued that the claimant was told, before she was dismissed, that "she was at risk of redundancy". However, the tribunal found his evidence "confused and confusing", concluding his statement was "untrue". It also found that Dhennin's evidence as to his decision to dismiss the claimant coming prior to his knowledge of her pregnancy was "misleading".
The tribunal concluded that the claimant was dismissed because she was pregnant, and therefore the dismissal was automatically unfair under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Hogan Lovells and Dhennin declined to comment.
This content has been archived.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 AllKingsley Napley and Lord Pannick Spearhead Private Schools' Challenge to Government VAT Policy
Spain Loses Appeal as London Court Rejects Claim of Immunity in €101 Million Arbitral Award Enforcement
Jones Day Expands European Footprint with Global Disputes Partner in Madrid
ENRC and SFO Reach Shock Settlement Over Media Leaks Allegations
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
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