IVF treatment and sex discrimination
by Olivia
Another interesting EAT case to report ….. that of Sahota v Home Office and Pipkin. Mrs Sahota lost her claim of sex discrimination at the Employment Tribunal, the alleged acts of discrimination including being suspended by her employer for taking ‘too much time off work’ due to IVF treatment. The EAT dismissed her appeal on two grounds:-
(a) following the Hertz Case ECJ it is clear that if a worker is absent from work as a result of gender specific illness, even one attributable to pregnancy, less favourable treatment on account of that absence does not constitute sex discrimination; and
(b) IVF is a form of medical treatment and should in itself not be treated as equivalent to pregnancy. Absence due to IVF therefore falls to be treated as sickness absence in the usual way. A limited exception to this general rule is for the ‘stage between the follicular puncture and the immediate transfer of the in vitro fertilised ova’‘.
Similar Posts:
