There are hundreds more like me, says woman sacked for being pregnant
‘Scope and breadth’ of pregnancy discrimination still emerging, says Helen Larkin
Maya Oppenheim
‘Scope and breadth’ of pregnancy discrimination still emerging, says Helen Larkin
Maya Oppenheim
Women's Correspondent @mayaoppenheim
Helen Larkin was awarded £17,303 from an employment
Helen Larkin was awarded £17,303 from an employment
tribunal over her dismissal from Liz Earle ( Helen Larkin )
A woman who was sacked by a leading beauty brand because she was eight months pregnant has been contacted by hundreds of others who say they have also faced discrimination at work while expecting a baby.
Helen Larkin was awarded £17,303 by an employment tribunal on Thursday over her unfair dismissal from the Liz Earle Beauty Company.
The 38-year-old, from Portsmouth, told The Independent a new senior employee saw her pregnancy as “standing in the way” of a company restructure, and her applications for two other positions were rejected without interview because she would soon be taking maternity leave.
She said the “sexist treatment” the company subjected her to is part of a wider problem in which women across the UK face unfair discrimination because of their pregnancy.
Ms Larkin, who represented herself in the tribunal, said: “I have had hundreds of women reach out to me from different companies, across all sectors, saying they have also experienced similar treatment. So many have been silenced or did not know what to do.
“Hopefully my case will raise awareness of the scope and breadth of the problem of pregnancy discrimination and make businesses look at their processes and procedures, as well as encouraging other women to speak up and realise they can take these companies on by themselves.”
Ms Larkin, who had been working at the beauty firm for five years and has 14 years of digital marketing experience, said she was only given two weeks’ notice of her redundancy in June 2018.
The mother-of-two said the ordeal has had a “huge impact” on her mental health and that she was very stressed about the case while pregnant.
“I was worried about finances because I was the main earner,” she said. “I was also worried about the stress it was putting on my own health and my unborn. Being stressed while pregnant can be dangerous and have long-term health implications for the baby. The day before my C-section I had to do forms for the employment tribunal.
“I feel shocked and angry that they took something which should have been a special time with my new-born baby away from me and I’ll never get that time back.”
The Liz Earle Beauty Company, which was set up in 1995 but later sold, is owned by US-based pharmaceutical giant Walgreens Boots Alliance.
Joeli Brearley, founder of campaign group Pregnant Then Screwed, said: “This is a monumental win not only for Helen but for women everywhere. Hundreds of thousands of women across the UK are cheering Helen on: women who have faced their own version of pregnancy or maternity discrimination but, due to cost, time limits, stress, mental-health issues or the sheer complexity of managing a tribunal claim and a new baby, were unable to challenge their employer.
“Taking a case of pregnancy or maternity discrimination to tribunal isn’t easy. You have three months less one day to raise the claim; the costs can be horrifically expensive with a straightforward case costing between £5,000 and £10,000, and more complex cases costing upwards of £30,000; and the stress and strain on new mums can be totally overwhelming. Companies often have finances and legal representation that far outweigh that of the victim, making it feel like David vs Goliath.”
These factors lead to only one per cent of those who experience pregnancy or maternity discrimination raising a tribunal claim, the campaigner said.
Read more
A woman who was sacked by a leading beauty brand because she was eight months pregnant has been contacted by hundreds of others who say they have also faced discrimination at work while expecting a baby.
Helen Larkin was awarded £17,303 by an employment tribunal on Thursday over her unfair dismissal from the Liz Earle Beauty Company.
The 38-year-old, from Portsmouth, told The Independent a new senior employee saw her pregnancy as “standing in the way” of a company restructure, and her applications for two other positions were rejected without interview because she would soon be taking maternity leave.
She said the “sexist treatment” the company subjected her to is part of a wider problem in which women across the UK face unfair discrimination because of their pregnancy.
Ms Larkin, who represented herself in the tribunal, said: “I have had hundreds of women reach out to me from different companies, across all sectors, saying they have also experienced similar treatment. So many have been silenced or did not know what to do.
“Hopefully my case will raise awareness of the scope and breadth of the problem of pregnancy discrimination and make businesses look at their processes and procedures, as well as encouraging other women to speak up and realise they can take these companies on by themselves.”
Ms Larkin, who had been working at the beauty firm for five years and has 14 years of digital marketing experience, said she was only given two weeks’ notice of her redundancy in June 2018.
The mother-of-two said the ordeal has had a “huge impact” on her mental health and that she was very stressed about the case while pregnant.
Read moreWomen being plagued with debt ‘due to skyrocketing childcare costs’
“I was worried about finances because I was the main earner,” she said. “I was also worried about the stress it was putting on my own health and my unborn. Being stressed while pregnant can be dangerous and have long-term health implications for the baby. The day before my C-section I had to do forms for the employment tribunal.
“I feel shocked and angry that they took something which should have been a special time with my new-born baby away from me and I’ll never get that time back.”
The Liz Earle Beauty Company, which was set up in 1995 but later sold, is owned by US-based pharmaceutical giant Walgreens Boots Alliance.
Joeli Brearley, founder of campaign group Pregnant Then Screwed, said: “This is a monumental win not only for Helen but for women everywhere. Hundreds of thousands of women across the UK are cheering Helen on: women who have faced their own version of pregnancy or maternity discrimination but, due to cost, time limits, stress, mental-health issues or the sheer complexity of managing a tribunal claim and a new baby, were unable to challenge their employer.
“Taking a case of pregnancy or maternity discrimination to tribunal isn’t easy. You have three months less one day to raise the claim; the costs can be horrifically expensive with a straightforward case costing between £5,000 and £10,000, and more complex cases costing upwards of £30,000; and the stress and strain on new mums can be totally overwhelming. Companies often have finances and legal representation that far outweigh that of the victim, making it feel like David vs Goliath.”
These factors lead to only one per cent of those who experience pregnancy or maternity discrimination raising a tribunal claim, the campaigner said.
Read more
‘Punitive’ childcare costs mean almost fifth of parents quit jobs
“Even fewer make it to tribunal, as once the company realises their previous employee is serious about legal action, they will offer a financial settlement tied to a non-disclosure agreement which prevents them speaking publicly,” she added.
Ms Brearley said the public rarely hears about cases such as Ms Larkin’s due to firms using “powerful and legal tools” to “gag and silence” their victims.
The Liz Earle Beauty Company, which denied discrimination at the employment tribunal, told the hearing: “The wellbeing of our people is of the highest importance to us and we always aim to ensure they are treated fairly.
“Over the course of the tribunal hearing ... it seemed that we fell short of our standards in some areas, which we sincerely regret.”
A study by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy previously found that one in nine women have been fired or made redundant, or were treated so badly they felt forced out of their job, after going back to work from maternity leave. The report estimated that about 54,000 women each year may lose their role at work because of pregnancy or maternity.
It also found that one in five mothers said they had experienced harassment or negative comments in the workplace that were linked to pregnancy.
WOMEN ARE THE PROLETARIAT
“Even fewer make it to tribunal, as once the company realises their previous employee is serious about legal action, they will offer a financial settlement tied to a non-disclosure agreement which prevents them speaking publicly,” she added.
Ms Brearley said the public rarely hears about cases such as Ms Larkin’s due to firms using “powerful and legal tools” to “gag and silence” their victims.
The Liz Earle Beauty Company, which denied discrimination at the employment tribunal, told the hearing: “The wellbeing of our people is of the highest importance to us and we always aim to ensure they are treated fairly.
“Over the course of the tribunal hearing ... it seemed that we fell short of our standards in some areas, which we sincerely regret.”
A study by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy previously found that one in nine women have been fired or made redundant, or were treated so badly they felt forced out of their job, after going back to work from maternity leave. The report estimated that about 54,000 women each year may lose their role at work because of pregnancy or maternity.
It also found that one in five mothers said they had experienced harassment or negative comments in the workplace that were linked to pregnancy.
---30---
WOMEN ARE THE PROLETARIAT
No comments:
Post a Comment