Employment law solicitor Richard Grogan of Richard Grogan & Associates writes on pregnancy-related discrimination.

In the case of Doctor Enda Loftus and Martine O’Sullivan EDA1825, the Labour Court issued a very helpful decision in relation to the case.

The Court helpfully set out the provisions of section 6 of the Act and quoted the case of Dekker ECJ 177/88, where the Court of Justice held that unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy is, by definition, direct discrimination on the grounds of sex.

The Court also referred to the Court of Justice decision in Webb and EMO Cargo case C-32/93 which held that employees may not have their employment terminated from the beginning of their pregnancy to the end of maternity leave save in exceptional circumstances.

The ECJ has held that dismissal during pregnancy is largely incapable of being justified. The Court then set out the issue concerning the burden of proof and set out the case of Mitchell -v- Southern Health Board 2001 ELR 201.

The Court in this case quoted the case of Dekker ECJ 177/88 and Browne - Rentokil 1998 ECRI4185 and Webb and EMO Cargo case C-32/93 that the treatment of the employee in this case amounted to direct discrimination.

The Court stated they were satisfied that the Claimant had established a prima facie case of discrimination and that the employer had failed to discharge the burden upon him to prove that the dismissal was for exceptional reasons unconnected with the employee’s pregnancy.

This case is important in confirming that the protection for an employee is from the start of her pregnancy until the end of her Maternity Leave.

In this case, an award of €27,500 was made.