Laid off Eversheds associate wins employment tribunal
Fallout from 2009’s redundancy programme highlights trickiness of the Sexual Discrimination Act…
…in a genuine damned if they do and damned if they don’t scenario.
It was inevitable that there would be a least a few tribunal claims following the mass redundancies of last year. A number of firms were hit in the aftermath including Clifford Chance, Linklaters and Allen & Overy.
Eversheds was also caught out – on a particularly tricky point concerning the SDA. And a rather costly one at that; the firm has just been ordered to pay £123,300 by a tribunal but is now appealing.
According to The Lawyer, Eversheds used a points system in their redundancy programme to determine where the axe fell. Real estate lawyer John de Belin lost out narrowly to another lawyer who was on maternity leave. Out of 39, he scored 27 and she scored 27.5; he was booted and she stayed on.
Why the controversey? Well, because she was away for the period used to score lock-up skills so Eversheds awarded her a full 2 points (the maximum for that category) – Eversheds were afraid that any other score could have resulted in a potential sexual discrimination claim from her. Which understandably didn’t sit well with de Belin’s or the tribunal’s idea of fairness.
Whilst it’s easy to have sympathy for de Belin, it’s also easy to see why Eversheds took the decision they did – imagine if they chose another way and maternity associate was shown the door. Tribunal red flags all round. It’s not difficult to envisage another tribunal saying the firm did not afford her the opportunity to show that she could have scored the maximum and awarding her a payout instead.
Unfortunate catch 22 for Eversheds – lose lose.
May 4, 2010
I hope the Shed gets its appeal shoved back where it belongs. They have shot themselves in the foot with this.
May 4, 2010
I agree. Distinctly poor behaviour by Eversheds. They risked being unfair either way but they succeeded in being unfair in a way that looks gutless and weak.
May 4, 2010
From a management point of view their decision makes sense. Either way an unfortunate associate was going to get canned. They probably took the view that a male associate early in his career would be less likely to bring a claim than a young mother with an extra mouth to feed.
May 5, 2010
Sadly there is nothing remotely surprising about any of this.
May 6, 2010
Well, some facts that Eversheds spin in the Lawyer didn’t include.
The male associate was 45 yrs old and had worked there for 14 years.
The woman on maternity leave returned to work and (being sole bread winner of her family and with a young baby) was dismissed in the very next round of redundancies.