Reader views (30)

 Add your view

hi, serious question, who were her lawyers? thanks

- Ellow, London, 25/08/2010 21:07
Report abuse

hi, serious question, who were her lawyers? thanks

- Ellow, London, 25/08/2010 21:05
Report abuse

Hi, serious question, anybody know who were her lawyers?

- ellow, London, 25/08/2010 21:01
Report abuse

Wow, 13.5 million for opening her legs

- DC, Ealing, 12/08/2010 11:59
Report abuse

And the wonder why women are unemployable these days.

Well done "wimmins lib".

- Tony the Trader, Limehouse, London, 12/08/2010 10:00
Report abuse

I guess this is the legacy of the previous (Labour) government which has been opening the floodgates for half of 'new Europe' and the rest of the world during 13 years... Everybody makes a beeline for the UK in order to 'benefit' from the system, sue the (any)companies/employers or get a divorce in the UK - and keep the house . They always end up considerably better in the end, than with what they came with. They have nothing to lose. Somebody has obviously read the UK guide very well. There are plenty of guide books on Europe showing what you get where and where the courts are most human and non-discriminating, or some would argue, simply gullible.
Needless to say, GENUINE discrimination is wrong, but this case is turning our legal system into a farce. Hope the courts see through this, and common sense prevails, otherwise it will clear the gounds for many more such cases.
As other writers mentioned, as a young VP working for just over a year, the claim is ludicrous. Maybe simply the better person got the job in the end. Any money (if paid)should be paid into a charity or some fund fighting against discrimination, but certainly not to one rather mammon-driven individual living in Kensington. After all, its about the cause not the money - or did I get something wrong? Britain wake up.

- eurosceptic, London, UK, 12/08/2010 09:35
Report abuse

Where do these horrible lawyers get their figures from?! 13.5M GBP damages, and she had only been there a year (or less!).. Unbelievable. I hope she loses. So many people have a distorted sense of reality these days - she is responsible for her children and finding a new job, and NOT entitled to money for nothing as both ID from Brighton and Mark Knopfler said!

Dishonesty seems to get people everywhere (including into the newspaper) in the UK these days.

My father emigrated to the UK when he was young, worked for a large bank for 42 years, and then retire. He was very very good at his job and did well. However when he retired he took his basic bank pension - this is NORMAL behaviour. I hope this womans case is thrown out and that she is faced with expensive legal fees.

- Andrew, Tel Aviv, Israel, 12/08/2010 07:41
Report abuse

She started maternity leave in March 2006, so she got pregnant around July 2005, having started working at Credit Suisse sometime the previous year and she's seeking £13 million damages? Whatever she gets awarded, it's money for nothing, as the Dire Straits song goes. Bet our boys and girls in Afghanistan will be pleased for her...

- ID, Brighton UK, 12/08/2010 00:33
Report abuse

Picking up on Bob's point, the particular story is not about some hard-pressed woman trying to maintain a work-life balance, but an investment banker for whom the high court costs are well worth the risk when potentially millions are at stake.

Simon's idealistic pie in the sky management consultancy mantra does not really apply here I'm afraid.

The bigger picture is that the money she is seeking comes indirectly from us taxpayers (Credit Suisse was bailed out but not directly by UK taxpayers - however, like every bank only survived because European Governments intervened using our money).

It is appalling to see the general bonuses paid from taxpayers bailout funds to investment bankers - In this case, I hope she recieves nothing except a large legal bill for her costs.

- John, Berks, 11/08/2010 19:56
Report abuse

I agree with mickinlondon,our boys defending country and Queen loose an arm and leg for what?a stupid medal and a joke of a pension.

- KC, London boy, 11/08/2010 19:33
Report abuse

@ Simon.
Thank gawd that there is someone leaving comments on this page who is sane and fair. Sue's theory seems to be that a woman gets pregnant and the company folds. That is just bad business management nothing to do with one member of staff being off on legal maternity leave.

When a woman has a child this is "normally" done in the confines of a loving and committed relationship with their chosen partner - male usually. The way everyone on this site is going it seems to suggest that women get pregnant to trap employees. Complete rubbish.

And Sue, IF you had your own business you would think twice about employing women. Don't think you would have to worry on that score... your people skills are clearly lacking and any company you'd run would fold in a short amount of time.

- yourastupidmare, London, 11/08/2010 17:43
Report abuse

Simon, London
I think you are missing the point. I respect all your views and agree with them, but what Sue, Kent said is absolutely correct, and quite refreshing to hear from a woman. How can anyone claiming for £13.5 mio not be trying it on... it is absolutely ridiculous !

- Paul H, London, 11/08/2010 17:29
Report abuse

simon @ London

If you read the comments properly, I think you will find that most of us acknowledge that the award has not been made, and that we hope its nothing like the amount of 13.5m claimed. The outrage is that such an amount can even be considered. The claim is nonesense.

- bob, stratford, London, 11/08/2010 16:36
Report abuse

Thanks for you feedback Sue. Couple of things, firstly I have ran my own company for 15 years, I employ 60 staff, consisting mainly of senior management, consultants and interim managers all working with clients in public and private sector in programmes with values of around 20 billion. Many of my team are woman, young, intelligent, focused and career minded. Some of those woman have children and 2 are expecting and I fully support them at work and as much as I can with the personal lives as I do equally with all my team. People have events in their lives, men and woman a like, I do not expect my team to make work their complete lives but do expect them to be commited when they are on my time. I do not consider myself to be rare in business nor do I share your prehistoric views and certainly have NO desire to be your "mate". The system is not broken, it protects people of all walks of life, she did not work the system, her company failed her and the system protected her.

- Simon, London, 11/08/2010 16:30
Report abuse

She's claiming £13.5 million? ...And how much experience could she possibly have? After all, only five minutes ago the Ukraine was communist: not much call for investment bankers then, surely.
Hell, for £13 million she could BUY the Ukraine!
But never mind, it's the usual story: go to the UK, and play the system. As a non-EU worker and a non-commonwealth citizen she should simply be kicked out.

- Croyboy, Croydon, UK, 11/08/2010 15:52
Report abuse

Simon, I've been around a long time and seen it all! Maybe if you have your own company you'd see things in a completely different light. Do you not realise that women like these milk companies for all their worth and then when the companies go to the wall ALL its employees suffer. You need to get more experience of life mate! If you want kids stay at home and be a housewife, if you want a high powered job then don't have kids, or have kids and get yourself a part-time job instead.

- Sue, Kent, 11/08/2010 15:37
Report abuse

What really annoys me is people who leave commments on a page without reading the story in full. It says she is seeking 13.5M not getting, the article even states the panel has retired to consider the amount to be paid. Also its worth noting that she was made redundant in the credit crunch (in 2007??) and the baby came in 2006, so the job share statement may be wrong. She held a VP position and was on rapid promotion trail so she will more than likely get her wage times 5/6 (rough guess) so perhaps a figure of 400,000 - 800,00 is far more likely... Dont just read the head lines guys! OH PS Sue you say you would "never employ a woman of child bearing age". Two things, one your statement in most if not all companies would see you dismissed for gross misconduct, two, so no woman between say 16 and 50 would work for you..err you may miss out on some skilled woman!! If I could only use the name I really want to call you.....!

- Simon, London, 11/08/2010 15:01
Report abuse

Sue, I understand your point but by your reckoning only the very poorest and richest should have children since they're the only ones that don't need to work whilst they have children. Times have changed and few women can afford to take years off work to have children. I wish I could - in fact the only way I could is if I was to give up my job and go on benefits.

Not all women milk the system. Of course some do but I've been working for my boss for 8 years. It's just the two of us here and if I decide to have a child I would get statutory maternity pay which means, in order to keep a roof over our heads, I could only afford to take about 6 months off anyway and then my husband would become a house husband after I go back to work (I earn most).

Should my boss not have employed me back in 2002 just 'in case' I decided to have a baby and wanted a few months off to breastfeed? Fortunately he looks at he bigger picture. What's a few months off in all those years of loyalty and hard work?

Perhaps the govt should create some T&Cs for maternity leave - if you accept maternity pay but then quit as soon as you return to work perhaps you should have to pay the money back + assoc costs? That might make pregnant employees a bit more honest about their future plans and would protect employers from being scammed.

Us women of child bearing age (18 - 45 yrs) form a valuable part of the UK workforce and at least our children will be instilled with the value of hard work.

- 32 year old, London, 11/08/2010 15:00
Report abuse

I always thought greed was a prerequisite to getting a job as an investment *anker. This just proves it.

- A. Cameron, Liege, Belgium, 11/08/2010 14:53
Report abuse

YOu would think that such a large corporate company could have sought the best HR advice rather than find themselves in such a difficult situation. Compensation is due, but, I don't think such a large award is necessary.

- Maya, London, 11/08/2010 14:50
Report abuse

13 Million pound? And how did she come up with that figure? People win the lottery and dont come home with that sort of cash; What was her salary? I agree she might have been discriminated but that figure is absurd.

- Dirk Diggler, Soho, London, 11/08/2010 14:34
Report abuse

When I worked in the Far East, there were some employers who would not give jobs to women and girls of child-bearing age unless they had been sterilised - no kidding.

This was not because of potential compensation claims. It was because they did not want to waste time training them.

So, stories like this will reduce women's chances of getting jobs. That's for sure.

- Anglo, Sussex England, 11/08/2010 14:19
Report abuse

How many female investment bankers and lawyers take such cases after motherhood? This sort of article seems to appear 1/2 times a month?

Women taking these cases clearly realise they can't have it all, despite the efforts of ardent feminists, but can certainly give it a good try if they do manage the large 7 figure pay off before they settle back with the kids in their family nest.

I worked in the public sector, where I believe maternity legislation was, in certain instances, taken advantage of, with senior managers timing pregnancies to coincide with minimum time in post to maximise maternity benefits, while the added value of the role reduces to little or nothing or continuing to hold down senior leadership roles, after child birth, they could not possibly effectively perform in terms of their ability to commit adequate time. I anticipate this sort of behaviour may be increasingly frowned upon as the Government starts cutting.

- John, Berks, 11/08/2010 13:53
Report abuse

To be honest, If I had my own business I would never employ any female of child bearing age, that would be stupid, whether its against the law or not, it has to be proven in a court of law that they were best for the job, and how exactly do you do that? I remember when someone took a post where I used to work and had only been there a few months when she got pregnant. She milked the system for all its worth. What a burden on the company owner financially, and it wasn't a huge well known company either. One year later the company went under and everyone was devastated. You can't blame any company for doing likewise. Either don't have kids and go to work, or become a housewife and look after your own kids, you can't have it both ways, dearie!!!

- Sue, Kent, 11/08/2010 13:48
Report abuse

I understand you have to be in a job for at least two years before being entitled to full maternity pay. On that basis, she's played the system well.

- Wispy Wonder, London, 11/08/2010 13:32
Report abuse

It is an awful lot of money but the bank clearly got it wrong and if a case for this amount can be proved good luck to her.

- Mike Melbourne, Bedford, 11/08/2010 13:09
Report abuse

Lets hope the award is nowhere near the figure stated. Discrimination of any type is appalling but nobody is worth 13.5m particularly as they can still work. To claim such a figure is obscene and undermines other similar cases.

We seem to have lost a sense of proportion - losing a job over discrimination is bad, but losing one's life in the service of others is even worse and does not attract anything like this proposed level of compensation.

- bob smith, East London,

I agree with you, Bob.

But Banks and Bank workers; are the salt of the earth to their own kind, and are paid their worth.

Whilst those that defend and fight for our country are just low life uneducated cannon fodder to the Elite; that are not worth anything at all to them, or the State.

- mickinlondon., london, 11/08/2010 13:03
Report abuse

Lets hope the award is nowhere near the figure stated. Discrimination of any type is appalling but nobody is worth 13.5m particularly as they can still work. To claim such a figure is obscene and undermines other similar cases.

We seem to have lost a sense of proportion - losing a job over discrimination is bad, but losing one's life in the service of others is even worse and does not attract anything like this proposed level of compensation.

- bob smith, East London, 11/08/2010 12:51
Report abuse

You don't mess with a high net worth individual. You pay them to say hello, you give them a bonus if they stick around and you pay them again to say good-bye. And you say thank you very much for having us, I hope it all hasn't been too much trouble?

- Bloke, Lambeth, 11/08/2010 12:39
Report abuse

An expensive baby?

But looking on the bright side; an early retirement with £13 and a half million in the bank.

- mickinlondon., london, 11/08/2010 12:31
Report abuse

Add your comment