Law firm unfairly axed male lawyer because it feared discrimation claim if it got rid of his pregnant colleague

Article taken from the Daily Mail Online.

“A male lawyer was wrongfully sacked because his bosses feared they would be sued if they fired his female colleague while she was on maternity leave.
In a rare instance of a man claiming sex discrimination, John de Belin won £123,000 in damages after one of Britain’s biggest law firms ‘deprived him of his livelihood’.

Mr de Belin was fired in February 2009 after losing by just half a point, scoring 27 out of 39 in the exercise against Mrs Reinholz’s 27.5. But he later learned that the test score had been ‘unfairly inflated’ to the advantage of his female colleague.
He also discovered that Mrs Reinholz was given the maximum possible score for her ability to swiftly secure ‘lock-up’ payments from clients – even though she was at home on maternity leave during the period of time she was being assessed”.
…

See the full article here: Daily Mail Online:

Comments by John Cook, employment law partner:

Were Eversheds right to act in this way? It is certainly a difficult question. However, the Tribunal seem to have missed Regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations. This states that if an employee’s existing job becomes redundant while she is absent on maternity leave and there is a suitable alternative vacancy she is entitled to be offered that role in preference of all other employees at risk. This is where the real unfairness lies in over legislating to achieve equality and actually creating inequality.