![[Basket]](images/basket.png){kind=small}
Your order![[cover image]](images/issue/BK201505.jpg)
Sex, pregnancy and maternity discrimination
[ch 11: pages 347-348]Under section 99 of the ERA 96, it is automatically unfair to dismiss an employee because of pregnancy, childbirth, maternity or because she takes or asks to take maternity leave.
Employers must consult adequately with women at risk of redundancy throughout their maternity leave. It is sex discrimination not to do this (Blundell v Governing Body of St Andrews Catholic Primary School [2007] UKEAT/0329/06/1005).
Failure to consult is also likely to result in unfair dismissal. For example:
In Langford v East Sussex County Council UKEAT/0275/13/DM, a member of staff was on maternity leave during a major reorganisation. She asked for her redeployment interview to be deferred until the end of her maternity leave. It took her employer two months to respond with a rejection, by which time all the vacancies had been filled. Commenting in general terms, the EAT said that a two-month delay in responding to a consultation question on an issue an employee regards as key is not “reasonable consultation” for the purposes of an unfair dismissal claim.
Langford v East Sussex County Council UKEAT/0275/13/DM
www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2013/0275_13_1211.html
In HM Land Registry v Benson [2011] UKEAT/0197/11, it was indirect sex discrimination to fail to notify employees who were on a career break of the availability of voluntary redundancy. The evidence showed that women take proportionately longer career breaks than men.
HM Land Registry v Benson [2011] UKEAT/0197/11