A Bangor woman who took a sex discrimination case against her employer in relation to her pregnancy has been awarded £25,000 in a settlement.
Ruth Faulkner was an employee of Intern Europe Ltd and had worked there since June 2010 as a placements officer.
During her maternity leave, Ms Faulkner had requested to work the same hours in a different pattern, but instead the company made the decision to reduce her hours.
The firm said it did not accept liability and ‘in no way selected the claimant because of her pregnancy, or issues related to it.’
The company has apologised for the upset caused to Ms Faulkner, but said this was not intentional.
The Equality Commission backed Ms Faulkner after she was left feeling ‘isolated and sidelined’ since disclosing her pregnancy.
It added: “On the first day Ms Faulkner returned to work after her maternity leave, she was immediately brought to a meeting where she was informed that her post was potentially at risk of redundancy.
“She alleged that she was told that the company wanted to discuss an option with her where she would choose to leave rather than go through a formal redundancy situation.
“Ms Faulkner claimed that she was informed that if she wanted to consider this option she could not return to her desk and had to leave the office right away.”
Ms Faulkner said before she told the firm of her pregnancy she felt respected and appreciated.
Mary Kitson, senior legal officer at the Commission, said all employers need to make sure that pregnant women and returning mothers have a supportive environment with flexible, family-friendly policies and practices.
“That is what they are entitled to under the law. It also makes good business sense for employers themselves, enabling them to benefit from the skills and knowledge of experienced staff,” she added.
Intern Europe has also affirmed its commitment to equality of opportunity and has agreed to liaise with the Equality Commission.
An Intern Europe statement said as a business, it was facing financial difficulty, and was looking at having to make some hard decisions and cost savings.
“We stated that we in no way selected the claimant because of her pregnancy, or issues related to it, and have not accepted liability.
“We accept the process of approaching the claimant caused upset, which is regretful, but was never intentional, and we sincerely apologised for this.
“We wish the claimant well and hope both the claimant and we as a business can move past this and look to the future,” the statement read.
