Travers 'discriminated against pregnant trainee', tribunal hears

  • Print
  • Comments (45)

Readers' comments (44)

  • You go girl!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This woman is incredibly naïve if she thought that the firm's graduate recruitment spiel about "no late hours" were actually true.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If the allegations are true certain people at this firm sound truly dreadful. Awful PR.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • My wife once worked there. A terrible environment for women by all accounts. I'm surprised these types of places are still around today.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • You go girl. I applaud and salute you!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • No-one but the parties involved can obviously provide much insight on her case but I'm surprised by the claim of general maternity discrimination - especially given the number of women at Travers on flexible work arrangements etc. I think a partner was actually made up last year while on maternity leave (which is pretty unusual for the industry).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sorry to be negative but she was naïve to think city law firms (in general) would be family friendly. I wish it was different but it is not and I fear it will never change (female law graduates take note in terms of your expectations for a family - ensure you have a salary for a 24/7 nanny or be open minded about career paths). Sure there are more senior females with flexible working arrangements but don't doubt how incredibly hard they had to work for them, that the flexibility is much more on paper than in fact (they still have the nannies) and how long they waited for the right window (not during their training contract) to get pregnant. City law firms will always be like this - very bright female graduates - there may be equally well paid / intellectually satisfying careers without this barrier so seriously consider alternatives to city law

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anon at 12.36 I do not know the rights and wrongs of this case, but as a male partner in a major city firm in my 50's I am disgusted to hear it said that she was naive to expect equal treatment. She was entitled to expect equal treatment and most of us wantnt her to have it. There are enough young decent people entering the profession for us to get our way.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 15-Feb-2013 12:55 pm I am not saying she did or did not have equal treatment. I am saying to bright female graduates at university to take into account what it takes in reality to have a successful long term career and a baby in a city law firm - and that they should consider other career options where there may be excellent pay and prospects but also a different attitude to maternity offering a more long term view of the employees potential.
    (For the avoidance of doubt my last sentence does not pre suppose that the woman in question had the potential (or did not have it) nor that any successful well paid long standing career (law or otherwise) does not require you to demonstrate absolute dedication and ability.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I know of a partner in a top 25 firm who was frantically sending e-mails at 3am when she had already started going in to labour several weeks prematurely. I can’t see how this culture will change unless a) clients stop demanding ridiculous amounts of work to be conducted in skin tight deadlines or b) certain law firms stop pandering to said clients’ demands and manage expectations a bit better. Neither will ever happen for as long as profit is the ultimate motivator.
    At the end of the day, most large law firms are processing plants operating almost constantly and anybody who takes time off to have a baby is implicitly expected to work until they pop or is implicitly marginalised in favour of those with similar qualities who will/can be around to work, work, woooooooooork.
    To be brutally honest, the claimant was naïve to think that becoming pregnant whilst a trainee would not implicitly damage her chances of being kept on. If I was her I would have delayed my becoming pregnant for a while until I had a permanent role. Granted equality should mean that there should be no need to do this, but the practical reality is a little different.

    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 (45)