Working Mother Loses her £1.3 Million Claim Against Bank
Contributed by Philippa Robbins, Rooks Rider Solicitors Employment Group, with contributions by Chloe Magri.
In June 2007, Katharina Tofeji, a working mother, lost her claim against the British branch of the French bank BNP Paribas for sex discrimination, victimization and constructive dismissal. Mrs Tofeji claimed that she received unfair treatment after she announced she was pregnant in November 2004 and again when she returned to work after her one-year maternity leave. Mrs Tofeji asked for a four-day work week to accommodate her childcare requirements but this request was denied.
She claimed that she received a ‘hostile reception’ on her return to work and that her client lists were not restored to her even though, prior to her maternity leave, she had consistently outperformed all other sales traders in her team.
Despite this, the London Central Employment Tribunal dismissed her claims and ruled that she was not wrongfully dismissed nor treated less favourably than her male colleagues.
Caroline Doran, employment specialist at Rooks Rider says, “Over the years I have seen numerous cases when successful women hold positions of responsibility and trust with the employer, only for them to encounter an entirely different environment when they return to work after maternity leave. In our experience, the gender gap is often only apparent after maternity leave. It is then that opportunities for promotion, the best clients and juicy bonuses become a thing of the past. The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) in 2005 conducted research which found that 30,000 women are made redundant or forced to leave their jobs because of pregnancy discrimination. I fully agree with EOC Chair Julie Mellor who said these conclusions were ‘shocking’.”
BNP Paribas are no strangers to discrimination lawsuits. Ms McGregor-Mezzetero, a female banker who had been with the bank for 12 years, won a sex discrimination claim in 2004 when she had her bonus payment slashed from £175,000 to £31,000 after she informed her employer that she was pregnant. Ms McGregor-Mezzetero’s case was extreme as she was given a bonus that was about ten times lower than her three male comparators who on average received £287,000.
Caroline Doran continues, “If a woman suspects that she is being discriminated against, a well timed Subject Access Request may help uncover evidence in her personnel file or elsewhere, such as the memorable note uncovered by Ms Julie Bower who was awarded £1.4 million in 2002 from Schroders. Her boss’s synopsis of her career was “had cancer, been a pain, now pregnant”. I am still amazed at what employers and managers will commit to e-mail, memorandum and other documents and which can ultimately be uncovered”.
However, it is not just females whose careers suffer as a result of wanting to spend more time with their children. The cases and allegations about working father’s difficulties hit the headlines regularly.
According to Caroline Doran, “I have had male clients who have been dismissed or been chastised after an informal request to work either part-time or flexibly to spend more time with their children. If the few men who ask to work flexibly are given short shrift then the situation must only be the same for women. The only difference is that most employers, except the foolhardy, would verbalise these thoughts to women. I have no doubt it crosses many employers minds when women make requests and they act accordingly – the employer simply does not give the real reason for the dismissal or lack of promotion or bonus.”
This leaves employees to wonder whether the problem is one of gender insensitivity or intolerance for the demands of parenthood, regardless of whether the mother or the father is the primary caretaker.
Please contact Caroline Doran, Head of Rooks Rider Employment Group, on cdoran@rooksrider.co.uk or 0207 689 7000 if you have any questions.
