Discrimination s Take Home Exam - 3414 Words

Discrimination Law- Take home exam Question 1 Due to medical problems associated with her pregnancy, Astrid needs to take an unpaid two weeks off work. Her manager, Renauld, is refusing to comply as Astrid has already taken all of her prescribed days off. As a result, Astrid is entitled to use the provisions set out in the Sex Discrimination Act . This legislation’s application is limited to its Constitutional heads of powers . It can be used by Astrid to get the flexibility she wants by making an application under it. This legislation provides protection against discrimination based on sex, marital status, pregnancy, family responsibilities and breastfeeding in places such as work, as experienced by Astrid. Firstly, Astrid could†¦show more content†¦Astrid being demoted due to her pregnancy requirements as outlined by her employer directly discriminates her compared to the hypothetical comparator . However, it might be difficult for Astrid to prove causation as a result of the employer giving reason as to his suggestion she become a contractor to receive her flexibility, being not as a result of her pregnancy in itself, but in the firm does not allowing part time work. Despite Astrid’s case not being strong through direct discrimination, she would have a stronger one as per her entitlements using the indirect discrimination test under the SDA s7B. The indirect test does not require Astrid to highlight a comparator, where her claim would be for the greater protection of women who require time off associated with their pregnancy. The first element of the test is whereby the employer has imposed a condition and requirement that is, all those who are employed as full time workers are not permitted to take any unpaid leave for any reason once paid leave has been used, which is constitutes a condition as per s5(2) . The following element to prove indirect discrimination is that the condition or requirement is likely to have the effect of disadvantaging persons such as those who are pregnant, with regard to Astrid. Furthermore, indirect discrimination is proved when the condition, requirement or practice is not reasonable in the circumstances. Astrid being