Senior manager sues Jigsaw for discrimination

A former executive at Jigsaw and Kew is suing the upmarket clothing group for discrimination, claiming she was barred from becoming CFO position due to her pregnancy. 

An employment tribunal in Croydon this week heard claims of sex discrimination, unfair dismissal, and discrimination on the grounds of maternity and part-time working brought by Kate Torpey against Robinson Webster Holdings, which also employed the Duchess of Cambridge as an accessories buyer in 2006. 

Torpey began working with the company as a financial control assistant in 1996, became director of Jigsaw in 2003 and managing director of Kew in 2004. 

She left to have her first child in 2009, but told the court that attitudes at work made her apprehensive about taking maternity leave...

The employment tribunal continues, with more hearing dates scheduled for April.

Continued...

» Register now

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.

Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

Comments
carnmores's picture

well this is what its all about

carnmores | | Permalink

this woman has had a lot of maternity leave one suspects over the years and she is entilted to that , but it has placed an enormous burden on her employers one presumes,  is it realistic for her to have a claim for non promotion when so much time has been taken off. is there a line in the sand to be drawn and if so where.

Assessing suitability for promotion    1 thanks

AshBavalia | | Permalink

carnmores wrote:

this woman has had a lot of maternity leave one suspects over the years and she is entilted to that , but it has placed an enormous burden on her employers one presumes,  is it realistic for her to have a claim for non promotion when so much time has been taken off. is there a line in the sand to be drawn and if so where.

Additionally, it is very difficult to assess someone on whether they should be promoted if quite simply they have not been at work for many months. I certainly would not envisage a scenario where I might say to an employee: "Welcome back, we have not seen you for six months during which period we could not have assessed your suitability for promotion but we will promote you anyway".

As a woman ...

cswan | | Permalink

I like to think I can be unbiased in these situations. Isn't it more relevant she is working part time? Or is the assumption that if she lands the role as CFO she will of course resume full time working?

Awaiting arrest!

Dutchnick | | Permalink

At the risk of the thought police turning up and arresting me I have to confess that one of the three promotions we made in this last month was a woman. One of the lady candidates is trying for a family with the intention of having two or three children, great. She is very effective and actually was the best candidate for the most senior of the position we were filling but we chose the other lady who already has a family. We are actually running a business in very diffficult times and with the best will in the world I must only think of the company's interest. I remember when Red Ken was wrecking London that there was a job for a Social Worker advertised. Candidates who were deaf etc etc were welcomed as a further person was to be employed to be their signer!   Madness!

My two daughter are high achievers in the corporate world have have both stepped back for a while working reduced days as they both have young families. For them the balance of having the buzz and excitement of great jobs balanced by enjoying their kids works well.  

  

The Business is important

musemma | | Permalink

What comes to mind in this case is Sheryl Sandberg's book - Lean In. 

That woman is qualified to hold the CFO position but she will not be available to carry out the functions and responsibilities of the CFO. Every woman is no Sandberg or Marrisa Mayer. As some do say, you can't have it all. But some women do!

Bigot!

whopkinscom | | Permalink

Dutchnick wrote:

Candidates who were deaf etc etc were welcomed as a further person was to be employed to be their signer!   Madness!