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

  • If these comments are right (I hope they're not) that other firms will be reluctant to employ this solicitor in future, that only makes makes Travers' actions worse and I hope that is reflected in the settlement!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I commend this young lady for having the tenacity and courage to bring this action. Qualities, no doubt, that any progressive-thinking employer would find attractive. The few negative comments on here are from a vocal but thankfully small and outmoded minority.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • By pursuing a financial settlement against Travers Smith, it brings into question what the plaintiffs motives were. Is a moral victory not sufficient? Ms Tantum's actions have damaged the real progress the legal sector has made in tackling discrimination and promoting equality in the workplace. (female contributor)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @Anonymous 3:31

    Shame on you. Who doesn't enjoy a spot of lack of fore thought after a long and stressful day in the office!

    (2nd Male city lawyer)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @Anonymous 2:34pm

    What an earth are you talking about? The tribunal found in her favour and awarded her damages (the amount to be set at a later date, but both sides had the good sense to come to an agreement in advance of that hearing). Was she seriously expected to then waive this entitlement out of the goodness of her heart? Is that what you would have done? Don't be silly.

    The rest of your post would, frankly, be laughable if it did not reflect the outdated attitudes that still exist in parts of the profession.

    Oh, and it's "claimant", not "plaintiff".

    (male contributor, not that this is of any relevance!)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If settlement amount is £X and claimants legal fees were £Y, suggested (smart) approach to ensure continued good employment prospects:

    1. claimant should pay £X - £Y to a women's charity of her choosing (so no personal gain and looks like was never in it for the money)

    2. claimant should publicly challenge Travers to pay triple that amount to same charity (by way of reputation restoration and acceptance of culpability)

    3. big law firms will (or certainly should) respect/applaud claimant's conduct and shower her with lucrative offers

    4. if all else fails, claimant would be welcomed as in house counsel at said charity.

    good luck to all concerned.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Thank you, Anonymous at 5:53, for putting the absurd comments of Anonymous at 3:31 in their place.

    I cannot understand how people are still criticising this trainee after all she has been though - and she won her case on a very clear basis!

    I hope that she is able to get a good job doing litigation, if that is what she wishes to do. If law firms don't give her a job because she took this case against her previous employer, that would be a retrograde step.

    (Not that it matters, but another male lawyer commenting here)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The partners concerned should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

    Travers will not live this down for some time.

    As a partner at a magic circle firm, I assure you, an application from a candidate of this resolve, who has evidently shown real courage and tenacity, would extremely welcomed here; it would certainly be something to discuss at interview re: describe how you have dealt with a set back!

    Let it be a lesson to other partners - live by your firm's values, or accept the fall out!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I would say this solicitor will now have an excellent career working in a high street law firm. I couldn't possibly imagine any city firm hiring her now.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @ Anonymous | 10-Jun-2013 11:38 am - I'm crossing my fingers that you can find some way to identify your firm to Ms Tantum so she can throw her hat in the ring, if that is the type of firm where she would like to work.

    Absolutely staggered at some of the idiotic comments here about her supposed motive. Perhaps she simply wished to uphold her right not to be discriminated against in the workplace because she was pregnant?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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)