Eversheds layoff programme ‘unfair’ to male associate

  • Print
  • Comments (27)

Readers' comments (27)

  • I'm glad for the employee. Leaning over backwards for the female has simply swapped one injustice for another.

    Women were poorly treated in the past, but that doesn't justify now treating men as second class citizens.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • That makes three top law firms in the spate of months having bad publicity.....can ever White & Case, Clifford Chance and Eversheds now shake off this image....between the three....sure do Eversheds reputation is becoming problematic...just like DLA Piper in Dubai.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I like John's comments

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Eversheds has been struggling with bad publicity for a couple of years now - they seem a fav whipping boy for legal press and not without some justification. Don't they realise that in house lawyers like myself read the lawyer (sometimes anyway) if I were them I would do anything to avoid the media and let it all calm down but they seem to love being front page e.g. superbrands story.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I was working there at the time and there seems to be a simple fact that Eversheds' spin didn’t include.

    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.

    Well done you champions of maternity

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well done John - i wish you all the very best for the appeal.

    It was simply a bloodbath at the time and absolutely no transparency from Eversheds. The partners were more concerned with protecting themselves - it was a case of stuff the minions beneath them!

    As well as well deserved bad press staff morale at the firm is rock bottom. So much for the 'great firm to work for' slogan!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It is somewhat amusing that in trying to prevent one set of proceedings for sex discrimination from their female employee on maternity leave, Eversheds landed themselves in Tribunal on those very grounds, but brought by their male employee.
    I believe that it is fundamental to have legislative safeguards in place to ensure women on maternity leave are not treated unfairly (I don't think anyone would disagree), however, that does not mean that employers should be allowed to use such safeguards to their advantage and to another employee’s detriment.
    All credit to you John for taking on Eversheds - it's always a satisfying triumph when David beats Goliath!

    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)