A former Eversheds associate has been awarded £123,300 after a tribunal ruled the firm was guilty of sexual discrimination against a male associate. Which makes a change from normal procedure.
John de Belin claimed that Eversheds had discriminated against him during the redundancy process in favour of a colleague who was on maternity leave. The firm used a points-based system to decide who should be made redundant, and the female lawyer got full marks for the speed with which she got her clients to pay their bills - even though she hadn't been working over the assessed period.
Eversheds claimed it had to do this in order not to fall foul of the Sexual Discrimination Act. But an employment tribunal disagreed, ruling that the firm had incorrectly interpreted the SDA and in doing so had discriminated against another employee. Which is pretty embarrassing for Eversheds' employment department really.
In a statement the firm said it took the decison "to act to ensure an employee on maternity leave was not disadvantaged". It added that it would be appealing the ruling.
However, one user on The Lawyer's website, claiming to be de Belin himself, says that the firm told him it took the decision "on a risk management basis so as not to give the woman on maternity leave any chance of taking legal action against them". Well, that backfired then.
Tip Off ROF
John de Belin claimed that Eversheds had discriminated against him during the redundancy process in favour of a colleague who was on maternity leave. The firm used a points-based system to decide who should be made redundant, and the female lawyer got full marks for the speed with which she got her clients to pay their bills - even though she hadn't been working over the assessed period.
Eversheds claimed it had to do this in order not to fall foul of the Sexual Discrimination Act. But an employment tribunal disagreed, ruling that the firm had incorrectly interpreted the SDA and in doing so had discriminated against another employee. Which is pretty embarrassing for Eversheds' employment department really.
 |
A handy guide for Eversheds employment team |
In a statement the firm said it took the decison "to act to ensure an employee on maternity leave was not disadvantaged". It added that it would be appealing the ruling.
However, one user on The Lawyer's website, claiming to be de Belin himself, says that the firm told him it took the decision "on a risk management basis so as not to give the woman on maternity leave any chance of taking legal action against them". Well, that backfired then.