abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

1 Nov 2005

Author:
Legal 500 [UK]

Sex discrimination: ECJ rules on sick-pay entitlement in relation to pregnancy-related illness

In North Western Health Board v McKenna the European Court of Justice...considered whether it amounted to sex discrimination (i) for an employer to treat an employee absent due to pregnancy-related illness in an identical manner as employees absent for other ill-health reasons for the purposes of sick pay entitlement; and (ii) for an employer to offset absence due to a pregnancy-related illness against an employee’s total occupational sick pay entitlement...ECJ...ruled that it was not sex discrimination for a sick-leave scheme to treat all ill-health absences...in the same way for the purposes of reducing pay entitlement once absence exceeds a stipulated level...It...was lawful for a sick-leave scheme to provide that absences on grounds of illness are to be offset against a maximum total number of days of paid sick leave to which a worker is entitled over a specified period, whether or not the illness is pregnancy-related.