Webb v EMO [1995] I.R.L.R. 645

• A woman was sacked once she got pregnant (she was initially brought in because another employee got pregnant).

• Question referred to ECJ was whether this constituted sex discrimination and it said yes.

• HL therefore held that national provisions (s.1(1)(a) SDA 1975) would be interpreted consistently with this ruling and where a woman had been engaged for an indefinite period, the fact that pregnancy was the reason for her temporary unavailability at a time when to her knowledge her services would be particularly required was a circumstance relevant to her case that could not be present in the case of the hypothetical man.

• NB when this case went to the ECJ that court said that pregnancy and the possibility of becoming pregnant are exclusively female characteristics.

  • It is therefore inappropriate to compare a pregnant woman to a man on sick leave.

  • NB this is exactly what EAT and CA had done

Lord Keith

It does not necessarily follow that pregnancy would be a relevant circumstance in the situation where the woman is denied employment for a fixed period in the future during the whole of which her pregnancy would make her unavailable for work, nor in the situation where after engagement for such a period the discovery of her pregnancy leads to cancellation of the engagement.

• NB This obiter comment has been contradicted by the rulings of the ECJ that such a situation IS sex discrimination (C-438/99 Jimenez Melgar v Ayuntamiento de los barrios [2001] ECR I-06915)

RELATED CASES

• Fletcher v Blackpool