Travers and ex-trainee reach financial settlement on pregnancy discrimination case

  • Print
  • Comments (20)

Readers' comments (20)

  • It should be whatever would have been paid to the 2 partners who tried to #### her over.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I find myself siding with Travers Smith in regard to this case. It was a lack of fore thought by the trainee to get pregnant during her training contract, which incidentally is not a guarantee of permanent employment.

    Despite Liz George's recommendation of her client, I am sure other firms will be wary of employing someone will such poor judgement.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous, 6-June-2013 3:31 pm - "lack of fore thought" - had you perhaps considered that sometimes things don't go according to plan?! Wouldn't this be an idealistic world if everyone got pregnant exactly when they wanted to?!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anon @ 3:31 outrageous, ignorant and deluded. you are Chris Grayling and I claim my £5.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Goodness me 3:31. The lady became pregnant. It is absolutely none of our business whether this was planned or otherwise. She became pregnant and (hopefully) we do not live in a world where we would encourage terminations as they were "inconvenient" to a career. There was a finding by the tribunal that but for Ms Tantum's pregnancy she would have been retained on qualification. I find it difficult to think of a more clear cut case of discrimination than this one.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • To @ Anonymous | 6-Jun-2013 3:31 pm are you having a laugh?

    "It was a lack of fore thought by the trainee to get pregnant during her training contract..."

    Flippin' eck....do you not understand discrimination?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "a successful legal career for herself", um, best of luck with that! No firm is going to go near you with a barge pole. Unless it's a specialist womens rights firm!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous at 3.31:

    Saying "a training contract is not a guarantee of permanent employment" is setting up a 'straw man'. No one is arguing (or argued before the tribunal) that a training contract is or should be a guarantee of permanent employment and moreover that question was not at issue before the tribunal.

    The simple question was whether the firm treated the trainee in question any differently to any other trainee simply because she was pregnant. The tribunal found that the firm did (and appeared to find ample evidence that this was the case). Discrimination. Cut and dry. That is it.

    Your (prehistoric) view that the 'poor judgement' in this instance was exhibited by the trainee for having the temerity to get pregnant, rather than the firm for discriminating against her, is laughably outdated.

    (It couldn't matter less, but I am a male city lawyer)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It would be very interesting to know in the future who would actually employ this solicitor in view of this case.

    (female solicitor)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • anon @ 3:31 - You're spot on.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 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 (20)