Pregnancy and unfair dismissal
Pregnant women who have been treated unfairly by their employers have several options available to them.

Employers who refuse to employ, or who decide to dismiss a woman because she is pregnant will be regarded as having directly discriminated against her. The usual requirement, under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, that a woman must show that she has been subjected to less favourable treatment compared to the treatment of a man in a similar situation is dispensed with. The European Court of Justice has indicated that in this situation a comparison is not required. Thus, denying employers the opportunity to avoid liability by arguing that they would treat a man suffering from a medical condition in the same way. However, a comparison is required where an employer discriminates against a woman suffering from a maternity related illness after the end of the statutory maternity leave period.

A statutory claim for unfair dismissal is also a possibility where a woman has been dismissed for pregnancy or a maternity-related reason. Such women are in an advantageous position compared to most other employees as the usual qualifying time period of one year's continuous employment does not apply. Also, dismissal in this situation is regarded as being automatically unfair. So, unlike most other claims for unfair dismissal, an employer is not given the opportunity to justify the reasonableness of his/her response. However, an employer is free to establish that the dismissal was due to a legitimate reason, which is not connected with pregnancy, such as the woman’s misconduct or a redundancy situation.

The effectiveness of the use of the unfair dismissal provisions as a means of protecting the position of pregnant woman is reduced by the limitation that such claims are open to ‘employees’ only. This prevents many pregnant women employed on casual short-term basis from bringing a claim. The fact that a potential claimant has just three months in which to initiate a claim will deter many women from embarking on a potentially stressful course of action whilst pregnant or caring for an infant.

The cost of children
A first baby increases the income that a childless couple needs to maintain its standard of living by 9 percent before the baby is 2, by 18 percent when it is between 2 and 4 and by increasing amounts as it gets older. And this doesn’t take account of the even more substantial costs of providing for their care. No wonder some people decide to save when they first get married to provide for increased future expenditure! By the time a couple have three teenagers, they need an income about twice as much as they did when they were just a couple. If their income does not increase, having three teenagers halves their standard of living!

The financial impact of having a child may be different on households on different income levels. On the one hand, children tend to share the standard of living of their parents, so better off households may be expected to spend more on their household than less well-off households. On the other hand, evidence shows that some poorer households spend more on clothes and toys for their children than better-off households, perhaps because they are determined that their children should not have to do without.

When people have babies their tastes almost certainly change. In particular, they are likely to have feelings about wanting their child’s needs met that they couldn't have had before that child was around. So it may be wrong to say that the parents are worse off if they cannot spend as much on themselves as before. This doesn't take account of the ways in which people’s feelings about what matters to them may change as their household changes.

Children not only need feeding and clothing, they also need looking after, and providing for their care is the most expensive aspect of having a child.

    next > Page 1 of 2

Content last updated: 25/10/2005

Comments