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 | 18-Feb-2013 3:20 am
It may be true that trainees are expected to work late, that qualification decisions are made in a shoddy manner and that the head of employment did not bother to explain things to his trainee. However, this is common across the city and none of it amounts to pregnancy discrimination.
It will be interesting to see if the discrimination allegation can be proven.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18-Feb-2013 12:46 pm
These firms want 100% commitment to the work and the clients. In my experience of working at a top City firm, I have never heard a woman (associate, partner...) complain, even mildly, that it is late evening and she needs to go home to see her family. Work carries on with the same energy and devotion all day and into the night. I am sure that inside they are not happy - hence the big exodus of 2 years+ PQEs - but the working culture at the firm would not accept them to bemoan the lack of personal time. Once you have a child, it's only natural that your priorities have to change. Your full commitment to work and clients then turns into a balancing act with your commitments to your child. This, I am sure, pulls you down and makes you a lesser choice when the firm chooses whom to retain on qualification or to promote. Many women choose the family commitments combined with a less demanding job and quit the City firm. There are a few who remain but in my experience they do not seem satisfied with their lot.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18-Feb-2013 3:06 pm
@ Anonymous | 18-Feb-2013 12:46 pm
The point you seek to make is precisely the point which anti discrimination legislation seeks to outlaw and, should this ex-trainee prove her case, the tribunal will be upholding. You appear to be saying that there is an inference that being a mother will naturally impinge on that "100% commitment" of time and emotion apparently required by firm and client. To do so is insulting and effectively implies that City law is one for the men (or at least past 2 year PQE). You can be appropriately committed to your job and not in the office for 60 hours a week, just as you do not have to be all consumed by the intricacies of City law to be an effective lawyer. You may like to try it some time. There is a world beyond the dragons of the Square Mile you know (outside office hours of course)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19-Feb-2013 7:12 am
As an ex associate of the firm I am not surprised by any of this. The firm has a pretty poor track record retaining its female talent generally, but the problem seems particularly acute among the women lawyers who leave to have children - few return. The firm really does have a boys' club culture, worst at partner level where there are very few women even compared with other City firms. Although I'm sad that Ms Tantum has had to bring this case it would be good if she forces Travers Smith to address its poor equality record. If nothing else Ms Tantum will show graduates looking for training contracts that although no City firm may be a particularly good place for (pregnant) women, some firms are definitely worse than others. I wish her well as becoming a mother (and presumably looking for another job) is a demanding enough time without the added stress of suing one's ex-employer for discrimination as well.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19-Feb-2013 9:25 am
What about the other two trainees who were not taken on, were they discriminated against too or were there just not enough places for all 22 trainees?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19-Feb-2013 10:50 am
Is there any reason that (almost) everyone assumes that she was discriminated against? As Annonymous at 9:25 states, there were two other trainess who weren't kept on. Where I've seen this story reported elsewhere it's been said that Travers thought she wasn't up to it; isn't that reason enough not to keep someone on?
Also, interested to see in a comment above about someone being made up when they were on maternity leave. Hardly sounds like a firm with a negative attitute towards women and/or pregnancy. I can't really comment without all the facts but I find it surprising how many people are quick to jump on Travers without them knowing anything either.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19-Feb-2013 1:54 pm
The harsh reality is that clients pay £500+ per hour for immediate availability: if they want assistance, they want it in accordance with their timing. And whilst clients might outwardly support part-time or flexible working, the second it affects them their support goes out the window.
Let's be honest, most lawyers' jobs are not rocket-science and the reason an NQ is paid £63k at Linklaters is not because that 23 year old is a genius but because that person is committing to work all hours necessary. When I was a trainee and NQ I didn't make any personal plans between 9am on Monday and 8pm on Friday because I was paid to be available: that's the compromise you make for the money and the prestige of working in the magic circle.
It is no different in other jobs: a researcher on Ant 'n' Dec gets paid £13k because its an awesome job, you work great hours and get to have illicit encounters with celebs; a fresh analyst at an investment bank gets paid £100k because its an awful job, you work all hours and you have to sleep with your MD to get anywhere.
Most associates now seem to think that law firms can afford for them to work 9.30 to 5.30 (with an hour for lunch) and still pay them the big bucks - they are living in a dream world and need to understand the basic economics of running a business.
As for "equality", why on earth should two identically qualified lawyers be paid the same salary but one is guarantee the right to go home at 5.30pm without question and the other leaves when their client says so?
Comment
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave Cote | 19-Feb-2013 2:12 pm
Of all the comments here, many view the need to have systemic change of how women are treated when they present with the solely women's ability to become pregnant in the legal employment environment. The most common cry of distress calls for all of us to support women in their time of less productivity by shifting the burdens of work to others in the firm, or managing our clients expectations more "realistically", or in ways that the product is pushed out more slowly and at some or even great cost to the client.
WOW!!
It's now the client that will directly pay for a woman's choice? How many clients do you think will be willing to take on a firm where there is a possibility that they can not control or have to simply put up with someone's whimsical decision to slow down the litigation process.
Further, if change is being demanded, where is the demand for change so it is not only women who are the beneficiaries of these social policies? Attitudes about men's rights to reproduce, or men's right to take over paternity leave in these same firms, or men's safety in emotional violence perpetrated against them in these firms by the female "bully's" is conspicuously entirely absent.
Regardless of the sentiment being expressed, there is less cry for equality than a cry for special treatment, or power and control unique to women, as women.
Some further self reflection would be helpful.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19-Feb-2013 9:00 pm
Travers have had this coming for a long time. I worked at Travers as a female associate and was discriminated against when I became pregnant. I was written off as soon as I said I was pregnant and a partner told me "not to worry about coming back". They rarely take women back after maternity leave and offer no flexible or part time working at all. Most people cannot afford to bring a claim so Travers just keep getting away with it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bob | 25-Feb-2013 11:32 am
I know a trainee at BLP who got pregnant during her TC - not even at the end. She said her HR were very accommodating, she timed her return date to coincide with seat change, and she's been taken on at qualification next month.
They're not all bad, it seems...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment