This website uses cookies for functionality and allow us to analyse the use of the site. To opt out please view our cookie policy. If you continue to browse the site, we'll assume you agree to the use of cookies.
Call us on
0370 1500 100
Jenny has extensive experience of advising employers of all sizes. She provides strategic HR and employment law advice to clients on all aspects including redundancy and restructuring programmes, disciplinary and grievance issues, absence and performance management, contractual changes, discrimination, TUPE and restrictive covenants. She has experience of working within a range of sectors including education.
Jenny is listed in the Legal 500 (2012) as ‘extremely diligent’ who 'instils absolute confidence’ in clients and was again recommended in Legal 500 (2013).
Jenny qualified as a solicitor in 2002.
“The Court made it clear that that there is no room for a direct, indirect or equal pay claim arising from paying women on maternity leave more than parents on shared parental leave. My client was correct to resist this claim. Its policies were similar to those of many other employers. Parliament has made a statutory exception which gives special treatment to a woman in connection with pregnancy or childbirth. That special treatment is, by definition, not available to anyone other than a birth mother, which means the partners of birth mothers are not discriminated against if they do not receive enhanced benefits for taking leave to care for their newborn. “This decision will be welcomed by employers that pay higher rates to women on maternity leave than to parents on different types of family leave. It’s also good news for women. Had the decision gone the other way, employers may have reduced their maternity pay to statutory rates because they could not afford to equalise pay rates to those taking shared parental leave – something Working Parents acknowledged in their submissions.”
“The issue in dispute in the case of Ali v Capita was one of direct discrimination. The issue in the case of Hextall was of whether the police’s policy of enhancing maternity pay for the first 18 weeks but only paying shared parental leave at statutory rates amounted to indirect discrimination. “Indirect discrimination occurs where a practice, criteria or provision that applies to everyone adversely impacts on a particular group. Even if this is made out, employers can attempt to justify their policy – by for example, arguing that enhancing maternity pay promotes loyalty and encourages retention. The argument here was that the rate of pay for shared parental leave is the same for both mother and father and the EAT found that it could have a disparate impact on fathers, because they (unlike mothers who can take maternity leave) have no other choice if they wish to take leave to care for their child. “This decision therefore leaves open the possibility that an indirect discrimination claim could succeed, although the employer will be able to try and justify it. The case will go back to be determined by a new employment tribunal. "Justification arguments may be, amongst other factors, influenced by the findings in the Ali v Capita case that there are health and wellbeing considerations for birth mothers in the early weeks of maternity. These issues were not raised in any detail by the EAT as they were not part of the appeal but would likely be issue in the ET case, when it is re-heard.”
“We are delighted to partner with the Yorkshire Enterprise Network and look forward to working with its members to help support them and develop their businesses.”
“We have seen an increase in the numbers of cases being brought by individuals engaged on self-employed contracts seeking to challenge their status in order to obtain valuable employment rights, such as the right to paid holiday and receive the national minimum wage rates etc. These often involve vulnerable workers in fairly low paid jobs. “The rights of these couriers will be determined by reference to the reality of their working relationship and not by what is set out in a written agreement. Employment tribunals and courts can set aside express contractual terms which are inconsistent with the reality of the relationship of the parties.er “A few years ago, the Supreme Court examined the status of a group of car valets engaged on self-employed basis and found that they were, in fact, workers. It said that individuals may be considered by HMRC to be self-employed for tax purposes, but they can still be considered to be workers and obtain employment protection.
Request A Call Back
Enter your details below and we'll call you back, at a time of your choice.
Preferred date*
This data will only be used by Irwin Mitchell for processing your query and for no other purpose.