Afternoon:
10°c
Sexism claim by sacked Baby P boss has ‘no hope’
Tim Ross, Education Correspondent16 Mar 2009
THE claim by former children's services director Sharon Shoesmith that she was sacked without compensation because she is a woman was dismissed today as nothing more than a “bargaining chip” to win higher damages.
Ms Shoesmith lost her £130,000-a-year job at Haringey in the furore over the council's failure to protect Baby P.
Experts believe she could win more than £1 million if her unlawful dismissal and sex discrimination claims against the council succeed.
Her case, lodged at Watford employment tribunal, is said to claim that “she was treated less favourably by the council than a man would have been in similar circumstances in that she was summarily dismissed from her job without compensation whereas a man would not have been so dismissed”.
She alleges she was made the “scapegoat” after Baby P died following months of abuse by his mother, her boyfriend and their lodger. He had been seen 60 times by professionals responsible for child safety.
John Quigley, head of employment law at William Sturges Solicitors, said Ms Shoesmith, 55, could win “huge damages”. But unless new information comes to light, her sex discrimination claim has “no real chance”. He said: “As a claimant, you haven't anything to lose by putting in the claim – it is a chip one can bargain with,” he said.
“But the trouble with her claiming discrimination is that everyone knows the reason why she was dismissed. I can't see how it could possibly be anything to do with her being a woman.”
Haringey council said it would contest Ms Shoesmith's claims “vigorously”.
Reader views (9)
She probably was made a scapegoat.
I haven't heard if she even knew of this case before it happened. I agree it happened on her watch and she is responsible for the actions of those she supervises but have we heard about THEM?
I doubt anything useful will come of this.
- Thalia, London, 17/03/2009 02:36
Report abuse
Is this really the best expression she could muster when having her professional photo taken? Goodness knows what sort of vibes she gives off on a bad day.
- Isabel, Woking, 16/03/2009 16:24
Report abuse
The arrogance of the women. Is there any chance the public can sue her for incompetance and claw back money she has already been paid? I wish she would just go away and stop wasting everyones time!
- Stuart, London, 16/03/2009 15:15
Report abuse
Whilst we wring our hands at the incompetence of Shoesmith and her brazen conduct, our attention is diverted from the army of Shoesmiths filling jobs at local authorities up and down our land.
Her "damages" claim is an indictment of the attitude that prevails in local government and it seems the only time they are prepared to employ their initiative is when their greed becomes more important than doing a good job.
- Bingham Macnamara, lymington, hampshire, 16/03/2009 14:55
Report abuse
Nice one alec, I'm glad she was pushed as I agree the that you should take the consequences when things go wrong.
I think she is missing her £130k!!
Shame she had to resort to 'sexism' Not true luvvy!
- C Cusano, Bedford, 16/03/2009 14:53
Report abuse
You take a top, well-paid job, then you should take the consequences when things go wrong. Fullstop, end of story.
- Philip, London, England, 16/03/2009 14:45
Report abuse
Shame she isn't part of a minority group, as then she would be in line for a massive pay out regardless of error and performance.
- Brandon Thomas, SW7, London, UK, 16/03/2009 14:24
Report abuse
The face in the photo says it all.
- Alec, London, 16/03/2009 13:05
Report abuse
Ms Shoesmith, you've done women no favours with your sexism claim.
- Marianne, SW France, 16/03/2009 12:21
Report abuse
