Mrs Parminda Sahota, an immigration officer in Ashford, lost her claims of sex and race discrimination at an employment tribunal in March 2009.

Amongst other claims, she alleged that she had been suspended by her employer for taking “too much time off work” because she was receiving IVF treatment. She contended that the 12 days she had been absent from work for should not have been counted as sick days under the Home Office’s sickness absence policy.

Mrs Sahota had two courses of IVF treatment, the first at the end of 2007 and the other in early 2008. The treatments were unsuccessful. She and her employer had agreed that for a period of time following each treatment, she would be regarded as being pregnant.

Having lost her original claim, Mrs Sahota took her sex discrimination claims to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), where her case was dismissed.

The EAT stated that it is a well-established point of law that less favourable treatment of a female worker due to an illness attributable to pregnancy does not constitute discrimination on the grounds of sex. If a worker suffers ill-treatment after an absence due to a gender-specific condition, even if it is attributed to pregnancy, this is not sex discrimination.

Infertility itself is a medical condition that requires medical treatment. IVF is a type of medical treatment designed to counter infertility, and it should be treated as being equivalent to pregnancy in itself. If a worker is absent because she is undergoing IVF treatment, this should be treated as standard sickness absence.

Technorati Tags: Employment Law, Sex Discrimination