Irish law
The idea that discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy should be construed as sex discrimination has been the subject of passionately debated controversy since the idea was first proposed. Honeyball contends it should be dealt with as sex discrimination yet other legal academics have recommended the introduction of specific rights. It is necessary to analyse the concept in order to establish which would be most appropriate. While some people advocate that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is the best vehicle under which to take action, others are of the opinion that this could lead to the law of discriminations, particularly direct discrimination, being completely undermined. At the time the concept of pregnancy discrimination being introduced as sex discrimination it was however generally viewed as a welcome alternative to the inadequate approach taken by the courts previous to this.
I shall initially discuss the state of protection (or indeed the lack thereof as the case was) in Ireland and the UK before the enactment of the EC Directive which enabled a course of action to be taken on grounds of discrimination against pregnant workers. It is clear from the case of Turley v Alders Stores where the plaintiff in this case was discriminated on the basis of her pregnancy, that the courts intended to stay out of matters pertaining to pregnancy on the grounds that this issue was an issue to be dealt with within the internal family structure. The courts in this case held that because no comparison could be made with a similarly situated male, it was not discrimination and therefore the courts were entitled to uphold the alleged discrimination by the named defendant. If there is no male comparator then pregnancy is the issue not gender, and as Honey states this is very problematic.
Following this case the cases of Electric Supplies v. Gilbert and Aldi v. Gedulgig the insurers were permitted not to cover pregnancy under their insurance policy for
I shall initially discuss the state of protection (or indeed the lack thereof as the case was) in Ireland and the UK before the enactment of the EC Directive which enabled a course of action to be taken on grounds of discrimination against pregnant workers. It is clear from the case of Turley v Alders Stores where the plaintiff in this case was discriminated on the basis of her pregnancy, that the courts intended to stay out of matters pertaining to pregnancy on the grounds that this issue was an issue to be dealt with within the internal family structure. The courts in this case held that because no comparison could be made with a similarly situated male, it was not discrimination and therefore the courts were entitled to uphold the alleged discrimination by the named defendant. If there is no male comparator then pregnancy is the issue not gender, and as Honey states this is very problematic.
Following this case the cases of Electric Supplies v. Gilbert and Aldi v. Gedulgig the insurers were permitted not to cover pregnancy under their insurance policy for