The dismissal of a woman at any time during her pregnancy for absences caused by illness resulting from pregnancy is direct discrimination because of sex.

A warehouse assistant became legally responsible for the care of her grandchild and she made an application to work three days a week instead of five. Her request was turned down on the ground that it would have a detrimental impact on her performance in the warehouse.

The employer had failed to establish that they had refused the request on one of the grounds permitted by s 80G(1)(b) ERA. Tribunals were entitled to investigate to see whether the decision to reject the application was based on facts and whether the employer could have coped with the change without disruption.

A female applicant was refused an appointment to a post because of her pregnancy, despite the fact that she was the best candidate.

Less favourable treatment because of a woman’s pregnancy amounts to unlawful discrimination because of sex.

A single mother with a child who had medical problems was dismissed after taking time off on 17 days.

The right to time off is the right to a ‘reasonable’ amount of time in order to take action that is ‘necessary’. The right to time off did not enable employees to take time off for themselves to look after a sick child, only to enable the parent to deal with an immediate crisis.

A male employee wished to take one day’s parental leave to look after his son. His application was refused, but he took it anyway. As a result he was disciplined.

Parental leave can be taken only in blocks of one week.

The claimant was a man who looked after a child whilst the mother returned to work as a teacher shortly after the birth. He was denied a claim for maternity benefit by the German social security service. The argument, in the legal proceedings that followed, was that the introduction of maternity leave was concerned, not with the protection of the mother’s health, but exclusively with the care that she gave to the child. If this argument was correct, it was said, then the leave should be available to either parent and become a form of parental leave.

The ECJ rejected this approach and stated that the Equal Treatment Directive was not intended to ‘settle questions concerned with the organisation of the family’.

An applicant was employed initially to cover for another employee who was to go on maternity leave. The new employee discovered that she was also pregnant and the employer dismissed her. She complained of sex discrimination contrary to s 1(1) Sex Discrimination Act 1975, now part of the Equality Act 2010.

One could not compare a pregnant woman who was not capable of performing the task for which she was employed with a male who was absent through sickness and therefore incapable of carrying out his tasks.