Paternity benefit

Issac

Hello,

I started a thread in the Parenting forum looking for advice on Paternity benefit. There were some very interesting opinions but unfortunately no legal opinions on my question.

Essentially I am wondering if a company does pay maternity benefit, then on the grounds of sexual discrimination, it would also have to pay paternity benefit (for the statutory length of time allowed - 2 weeks)?

I know both are "at the discretion" of the employer but surely if it pays maternity then it would have to pay paternity?

Other thread here

Victor

That might be complicated.

Paying a maternity payment could be seen as righting past wrongs, where women were seriously discriminated against in the past, and therefore permissible. However, we are entering a stage where such discrimination isn't as egregious as it used to be and justifying such a payment - to the exclusion of others - may be more difficult.

Peregrinus

Issac wrote: »

Hello,

I started a thread in the Parenting forum looking for advice on Paternity benefit. There were some very interesting opinions but unfortunately no legal opinions on my question.

Essentially I am wondering if a company does pay maternity benefit, then on the grounds of sexual discrimination, it would also have to pay paternity benefit (for the statutory length of time allowed - 2 weeks)?

I know both are "at the discretion" of the employer but surely if it pays maternity then it would have to pay paternity?

No.

There's an exception in the Employment Equality Act which explicitly allows employers to provide benefits to women in connection with pregnancy and maternity; s. 26(1).

Issac

Thanks for the link - that's exactly the type of thing I'm looking for.

It states that: 26.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall make it unlawful for an employer to arrange for or provide treatment which confers benefits on women in connection with pregnancy and maternity (including breast feeding) or adoption.

I'm not arguing against maternity for women - just that if an employer elects to pay maternity benefit that it should also pay paternity. Nothing about paying (or not paying) paternity would affect women's payments in this case.

lifeandtimes

Issac wrote: »

Thanks for the link - that's exactly the type of thing I'm looking for.

It states that: 26.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall make it unlawful for an employer to arrange for or provide treatment which confers benefits on women in connection with pregnancy and maternity (including breast feeding) or adoption.

I'm not arguing against maternity for women - just that if an employer elects to pay maternity benefit that it should also pay paternity. Nothing about paying (or not paying) paternity would affect women's payments in this case.

But the wording is there to cover that "nothing in this act would make it unlawful"
Meaning that by paying woman maternity benifit it's not unlawful for them to not pay men paternity. Basically saying just because we are paying them and they get special treatment,it doesn't mean we are wrong by not paying you

Peregrinus

Issac wrote: »

Thanks for the link - that's exactly the type of thing I'm looking for.

It states that: 26.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall make it unlawful for an employer to arrange for or provide treatment which confers benefits on women in connection with pregnancy and maternity (including breast feeding) or adoption.

I'm not arguing against maternity for women - just that if an employer elects to pay maternity benefit that it should also pay paternity. Nothing about paying (or not paying) paternity would affect women's payments in this case.

There may be a strong moral or economic case for paying parental benefits on the same terms to both men and women. But, legally, you're on a hiding to nothing; s. 26(1) was specifically included to ensure than an employer who provides maternity benefits would not find himself obliged to provide corresponding paternity benefits.

That's not to say you can't seek them. But your route has to be negotiation, not court action.

Issac

Thanks everyone, really appreciate the help. It seems completely morally wrong to me but it is what it is.
Can this sort of thing be challenged in court? Not that I am going to no to do so, just out of curiosity.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Issac wrote: »

Thanks everyone, really appreciate the help. It seems completely morally wrong to me but it is what it is.
Can this sort of thing be challenged in court? Not that I am going to no to do so, just out of curiosity.

Well do you have an idea that the law is constitutionally wrong? If so it could be challenged in the courts.