Eversheds layoff programme ‘unfair’ to male associate

  • Print
  • Comments (27)

Readers' comments (27)

  • Let this be a warning to law firms. Another point to the associates I think!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Another point? That makes one, right? Or maybe 0.5...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Upon the basis that this story didn't come from me it appears Eversheds PR dept think the firm needs some spin in this regard.

    "...our decision to act to ensure an employee on maternity leave was not disadvantaged."

    An employment partner early in the redundancy process stated to me that the firm was acting on a risk mangagement basis so as not to give a woman on maternity leave any chance of taking legal proceedings against them.

    There were only the two of us in the redundancy pool and the issue of lock-up could have been approached fairly in many ways. However the risk mangement process seemed to dictate that was not relevant.

    Eversheds then belatedly tried to shore-up the fairness of their risk management policy by a highly improbable interpretation of s2(2) SDA.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • John, can you lend me a tenner?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • John, save it for the appeal, mate.
    You are one - nil up at half time. Best not to give them any ammunition

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Hi John! Are you back in Coventry?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I'm glad that John has won the case and wish him well in the appeal. There are many who are in his position, I'm sure. I was also sacked from a firm because the partners didn't dare risk sacking the female partner. Unlike John, I didn't have the energy and courage to challenge them.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • John, I have to ask:

    - might the fact that the female on maternity leave was cheaper to employ than you have had a bearing on the decision to load the dice in her favour? (brace for moans of disapproval from the politically correct lobby).

    I ask this nevertheless because of the statistical evidence of an upswing in female recruitment by firms as they look earnestly to acquire good quality CPE lawyers on the cheap?

    My point isn't that females don't deserve advancement - quite the contrary, there is ample evidence that their advancement is often merited - but they deserve to be advanced on the same money as their male counterparts.

    This is "cheapskating" masquerading as a genuine push for diversity and fairness and you're right to challenge it.

    Good for you son!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Why doesn't this surprise me one bit....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It just demonstrates yet again what an absurdly complex minefield employment law has become.

    An employer is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

    Eversheds can easily afford a £123,000 payout and the legal fees of hiring a QC, but this would bankrupt most small employers.

    Even if they could have afforded top legal advice - which presumably Eversheds took - they would still have ended up in Eversheds' position.

    There needs to be a root and branch reform of employment law to make it a lot easier - at least for small businesses - to hire and fire, and free employers from the fear of employing people and the tyranny of such completely unpredictable employment law.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (27)