Travers 'discriminated against pregnant trainee', tribunal hears
A former Travers Smith trainee has claimed the firm discriminated against her by not granting her a permanent job as a lawyer because she was pregnant.
Andrew Lilley
Katie Tantum found out she was pregnant during her final trainee seat at the City firm and claims that her line manager “stopped bothering” with her weeks after she told him she was expecting a child.
Tantum, who is suing the firm for pregnancy discrimination and unfair dismissal, makes specific allegations in her witness statement about the way managing partner Andrew Lilley handled her original complaint to him after she found out she was not being considered for a permanent newly qualified role.
She also attacks the firm’s “attitude towards pregnancy discrimination”.
She claims that she was only offered a two-month contract until her maternity leave and was one of three out of 22 trainees not taken on permanently or given a minimum 12-month contract. She also claims that when she heard last May that she was not being kept on permanently litigation partner and training principal Andrew King told her “no one put their hand up” for her.
The firm denies all the allegations and claims that Tantum was not of good enough quality to obtain a job as a lawyer at the firm.
The tribunal heard that Tantum wrote to Lilley, an employment lawyer, after hearing the news and received a letter from him that “categorically refuted” any possibility that her pregnancy was a factor.
Her witness statement details widespread claims about the firm’s treatment of her, alleging the firm “is not committed to tackling” pregnancy discrimination.
It also emerged during the proceedings that the firm had previously received two complaints in 2009 related to pregnancy or maternity discrimination.
Commenting on Lilley’s response, Tantum claims: “Even if that was true [that she was not discriminated against because she was pregnant], which I do not believe, Mr Lilley was in no position to know that that was the case without making proper enquiries, which presumably would or should have taken more time.
“Mr Lilley’s holding reply also meant that the substantive response to my complaint would only be a confirmation of what he had already decided. There was no hope, therefore, that my allegations would be looked at with an open mind to the possibility that I might benefit.
“I think that Mr Lilley’s response to my complaint epitomises the firm’s attitude towards pregnancy discrimination. Contrary to the statements it makes in its equal opportunities material, the firm is not committed to tackling this issue. If the firm was serious about this, Mr Lilley’s reply, while perhaps expressing the view that he doubted very much that my pregnancy had played a part in the firm’s decisions would, at the very least, have said that he will investigate the complaint, especially since I am not the first woman to have made this allegation: the firm has previously had employment tribunal proceedings brought against it claiming pregnancy or maternity discrimination.”
The tribunal heard yesterday (14 February) of a chain of emails among some partners making judgements about certain candidates including Tantum, many of which were based on little or no professional evidence, her counsel alleged.
Her barrister, David Massarella of Cloisters, instructed by Leigh Day & Co barrister Elizabeth George, probed the issue of Travers’ recording processes and brought evidence pointing to an informal way of selecting successful candidates.
In one case, a partner claimed in an email that a certain candidate was clearly keen on litigation because the trainee had been on the department’s skiiing trip, for which they have to pay a small amount, the tribunal heard yesterday. It then emerged that the partner had confused the candidate with another one, the tribunal heard.
Tantum, the daughter of former MI6 Middle East director Geoffrey Tantum, appeared at the London Central Employment Tribunal this week, with the hearing expected to end today (15 February).
She alleges in her statement: “The firm states on its website, when writing about its culture, that ‘there is certainly no staying late to look good’. That is just not true. While our contracts may have said that ‘normal office hours’ were 9.30am to 5.30pm, I certainly had the impression that it was frowned upon to be seen to want to get away before 6.30pm.”
She alleges that Mahesh Varia, head of employee incentives and her line manager at the time, “just stopped bothering with me” after she became pregnant.
Tantum claims: “The contrast was quite startling, in terms of how I was supervised before the news of my pregnancy and how I was supervised afterwards. I was not given anywhere like the same amount of work. Whereas I had previously been busy at work and staying in the office after 8.30pm on a number of occasions, I ceased to be at all busy after this - in fact I often had very little work to do, which I found frustrating.
“Also, Mahesh did not mentor me in the same fashion. He stopped involving me in his cases and no longer took time to explain a particular matter in the way that he had done previously.”
King and tax head Kathleen Russ were among the figures at the firm to give evidence, with both appearing yesterday.
The firm claimed its partners had received diversity and equal opportunities training, while King told the tribunal that a review of the firm’s trainee-scheme policies by the SRA had shown no cause for concern.
Travers declined to comment while the tribunal process is ongoing. The firm was represented by Edward Brown of Essex Court Chambers.
The case continues.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (44)
Anonymous | 15-Feb-2013 4:45 pm
I think the real story here is that such a claim actually made it into the public arena. God knows how many discrimination suits against the MC have been settled quietly with a suitcase full of cash.
The question is whether (i) TS refused to settle because they feel strongly that they did nothing wrong, (ii) TS refused to settle because the claim was too high, or (iii) the lady wanted it to be public.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Feb-2013 4:46 pm
"The firm claimed its partners had received diversity and equal opportunities training, while King told the tribunal that a review of the firm’s trainee-scheme policies by the SRA had shown no cause for concern."
The sentiments implicit in those comments did make me smile on a Friday afternoon in the office.... If those are two principal points of the Travers' defence, my pro bono advice is to settle now.... You are welcome Travers chaps and (possibly fewer) chapesses.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Feb-2013 4:50 pm
Anonymous | 15-Feb-2013 4:18 pm: Travers Smith made up a corporate lawyer just last year whilst she was on maternity leave - it can and does happen.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
n | 15-Feb-2013 4:52 pm
They went on a ski trip?! Doesnt sound all bad.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Feb-2013 4:58 pm
It is shaming on the profession that discrimination like this still occurs and that women are still forced to take a stand against it. It is shaming on law firms that do not step up and acknowledge their best and brightest (men as well as women nowadays) may well need to work flexibly and that does not affect their ability to bill well and do an outstanding job for their clients. We continue to hear stories like this, although as we know most settle before getting anywhere close to an open court. Having jumped ship from a dinosaur which treated me in a similar manner to Ms Tatum, albeit much further on in my career, I can report there are firms out there which do not have the same attitude and are open minded enough to appreciate good people in whatever guise they come. Ultimately the profession needs to change and firms that act in the way Travers are alleged to have done will fall behind client's and staff's needs. A brave stand by Ms Tatum which hopefully will not damage her long term prospects as it has for so many before her that took the same stance. Maybe one of the more positive "city partner" commentators will offer her a job?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Feb-2013 5:07 pm
"In one case, a partner claimed in an email that a certain candidate was clearly keen on litigation because the trainee had been on the department’s skiiing trip, for which they have to pay a small amount"
Not strictly relevant to the discussion, but I can't think of anything worse than using my annual leave and savings to go on a holiday with colleagues!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Feb-2013 6:52 pm
As someone who qualified whilst pregnant at a large law firm, I can say that my experiences were generally very positive and the quality and quantity of work that I received didn't decline during that period (I had a fantastic (male) supervisor). I appreciate that all firms are different but from my own experiences, I never felt that I was at a disadvantage to my peers. I chose to leave that firm on qualification, so I will never know whether my circumstances would have been an issue but I genuinely believe that a reputation as a good trainee would have been sufficient to secure a job. However, on a slight tangent, I would have to say that trying to get back into law on anything less than a 5 day week is virtually impossible at my level of PQE if you aren't returning to the firm you have trained at. It is depressing to feel that you have worked hard to attain professional skills and a strong reputation as a good trainee, but find that the market does not accommodate a working mother. Obviously, I appreciate that firms do allow women (and men) to work part-time etc to help with their family commitments, but in terms of hiring new staff, I just don't think junior lawyers are attractive unless they are working full-time. It will be interesting to see how the case concludes.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Feb-2013 9:50 pm
None of the accusations made at tribunal surprise me. What does truly astonish me is how much of the commentary in this chain, presumably contributed in the main by 'lawyers', pre-judges the outcome of the tribunal. Anonymous male parter of global law firm @ 3.26pm - I'm surprised you needed strategic discussions when you could have pre-judged their outcome so accurately. By all means criticise; but afford your profession some respect by doing so on the basis of discovered fact rather than supposition.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Feb-2013 7:48 pm
Good for her. Many women are discriminated against in the city - sometimes to the extent of losing their jobs - and female trainees coming up to qualification are particularly vulnerable to this because of the often informal nature of the hiring process at this stage. But many women do not complain for fear of their reputation, lack of confidence or evidence, and/or fear of the financial drain which a legal complaint might involve. Glad this girl had the confidence to stand up.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anon Client | 17-Feb-2013 9:41 am
No-one seems to have noticed that the asssessment of her abilities as a lawyer was called into doubt. The evening standard reported that she had made major errors in drafting an SPA and she was not up to it. I don't condone any kind of discrimination but I don't think we should condemn until all the evidence is heard. i am a female client of this firm and i have very positive experience of the female associates and the coroporate partners. I have not heard negative comments from the associates with whom I have worked on various deals.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment