Which is it you want – equality or maternity leave?
- 186 Downloads
Abstract
In Alabaster v. Barclays Bank plc and Secretary of State for Social Security (No. 2: [2005] E.W.C.A Civ. 508, [2005] I.R.L.R. 576.) Michelle Alabaster won a grand total of £204.53 (plus £65.86 interest) after eight years of litigation, which included two visits to the Court of Appeal and one to the European Court of Justice. This marathon resulted from the sex discrimination which Alabaster had alleged in relation to the calculation of her Statutory Maternity Pay (S.M.P.) whilst she was pregnant 10 years earlier. The technicalities of the statutory schemes involved should not be allowed to disguise the important principle which finally emerges in the Court of Appeal and which underlines one of the longstanding criticisms of the equality legislation, namely the requirement that a woman must compare herself with a man in order to establish unlawful sex discrimination.
Keywords
equal pay European Law maternity rights sex discriminationPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Department for Trade and Industry and the Women and Equality Unit, “Individual Incomes of Men and Women, 1996/7–2003/4” (2005)Google Scholar
- Equal Opportunities Commission, “Greater Expectations”, (2005), http://www.eoc. org.uk/cseng/policyandcampaigns/pregnancy_gfi_final_report.pdf
- Fleming J. (1991). Be a Bloody Train Driver. London, PenguinGoogle Scholar
- Sohrab J.A. (1993). Avoiding the ‘Exquisite Trap’: A Critical look at the Equal Treatment/Special Treatment Debate in Law. Feminist Legal Studies 1/2:141–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar