Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Employment lawLatest News

Herbert Smith faces £40,000 payout on sex discrimination ruling

by dan thomas 25 Oct 2005
by dan thomas 25 Oct 2005

Law firm Herbert Smith has been ordered to pay £40,000 to a former employee after the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) upheld a sex discrimination ruling against the firm.

The EAT backed five out of six claims against Herbert Smith, after an employment tribunal in July found that part-time IT manager Michelle Langton had suffered discrimination and unfair dismissal.

Langton, who had worked for Herbert Smith for six years, returned from maternity leave in April 2002, on a part-time basis, which included half a day working from home.

In September 2003, she came under increasing pressure from her new line manager, George Kalorkoti, to revert to working during the firm’s ‘core hours’, the tribunal heard.

She was told there was ‘no flexibility’ for her to continue to do some of her work from home and that her childcare responsibilities were ‘not the concern of Herbert Smith’.

Kalorkoti said that Langton’s future career at the firm depended on whether she was ‘planning on having any more children’.

Langton raised a grievance about Kalorkoti’s treatment of her and lodged proceedings under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The original tribunal upheld her claim, which has now been ratified by the EAT.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Jenny Watson, acting chair of The Equal Opportunities Commission, said: “We are delighted with the tribunal’s decision, which sends a clear message that companies must treat part-time workers fairly regardless of seniority.”

Herbert Smith said in a statement: “We are disappointed with the judgment, and continue to the believe the original decision of the employment tribunal was wrong. Flexible working and female retention are important issues for the firm and will remain key priorities for us going forward.”

dan thomas

previous post
UK among most productive countries in the world
next post
Union activists face formal discipline after wildcat strikes at Heathrow

You may also like

MPs demand Home Office tighten visas to protect...

4 Jul 2025

100% success for latest large-scale four-day week trial

3 Jul 2025

NHS 10-year Health Plan sets out vision for...

3 Jul 2025

Microsoft to cut 9,000 jobs globally as role...

3 Jul 2025

Decline in workplace deaths: falls from height remain...

3 Jul 2025

How can HR prepare for changes to the...

3 Jul 2025

Data skills gap getting in way of AI...

3 Jul 2025

Top 10 HR questions June 2025: Redundancy consultation

2 Jul 2025

Aircrew with cancer pursuing MoD for compensation –...

2 Jul 2025

Living wage pushes up spring pay settlements

2 Jul 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+