Webb v EMO [1995] I.R.L.R. 645

A woman was sacked once she got pregnant (she was initially brought in because another employee got pregnant).

Question referred to ECJ was whether this constituted sex discrimination and it said yes.

HL therefore held that national provisions (s.1(1)(a) SDA 1975) would be interpreted consistently with this ruling and where a woman had been engaged for an indefinite period, the fact that pregnancy was the reason for her temporary unavailability at a time when to her knowledge her services would be particularly required was a circumstance relevant to her case that could not be present in the case of the hypothetical man.

NB when this case went to the ECJ that court said that pregnancy and the possibility of becoming pregnant are exclusively female characteristics.

• It is therefore inappropriate to compare a pregnant woman to a man on sick leave.

• NB this is exactly what EAT and CA had done