Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. “Comparable Workers” and the Part-Time Workers Regulations: Matthews v. Kent and Medway Towns Fire Authority [2006] U.K.H.L. 8.Olivia Smith - 2007 - Feminist Legal Studies 15 (1):85-98.
    The House of Lords majority decision in Matthews v. Kent and Medway Towns Fire Authority overturns the narrow interpretation given to key aspects of the Part-Time Workers (Protection of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations’ core comparator mechanism in the lower tribunals and the Court of Appeal. It is a contextually astute judgment, which recognises the reductionist implications of an overly narrow approach to establishing comparability for the purposes of a less favourable treatment claim on the grounds of part-time work. The positive (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Law’s Response to Pregnancy/Workplace Conflicts: A Critique. [REVIEW]C. Grace James - 2007 - Feminist Legal Studies 15 (2):167-188.
    This paper considers law’s engagement with pregnancy/workplace conflicts. Drawing on recent research, including original empirical research conducted by the author, I consider how law’s response is ineffective. The nature of this ‘ineffective response’ is explored and in particular I consider the gap between, on the one hand, legal prescriptions and policy ambitions and, on the other hand, the reality of pregnancy/workplace conflicts. In essence, law fails to capture the experiences of pregnant women and new mothers at work and this is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Which is it you want – equality or maternity leave?: Alabaster v. Barclays Bank p.l.c. and Secretary of State for Social Security [2005] E.W.C.A Civ. 508, [2005] I.R.L.R. 576.Anne E. Morris - 2006 - Feminist Legal Studies 14 (1):87-97.
    In Alabaster v. Barclays Bank plc and Secretary of State for Social Security (No. 2: [2005] E.W.C.A Civ. 508, [2005] I.R.L.R. 576.) Michelle Alabaster won a grand total of £204.53 (plus £65.86 interest) after eight years of litigation, which included two visits to the Court of Appeal and one to the European Court of Justice. This marathon resulted from the sex discrimination which Alabaster had alleged in relation to the calculation of her Statutory Maternity Pay (S.M.P.) whilst she was pregnant (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark