Childless servicewomen may sue MoD
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.(First Edition)
TENS of thousands of servicewomen who chose not to have a baby because they would lose their jobs may be able to claim compensation for 'emotional damage'.
Lawyers are seeking a test case which could lead to a flood of claims and damages totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds. Several servicewomen who had abortions rather than give up their careers are already attempting to gain compensation.
The move follows the Ministry of Defence admission that it had acted unlawfully in dismissing pregnant women between 1978 and 1990, following an appeal to the European Court. Since then, awards totalling 20m have been made to about 2,400 women; a further 1,700 cases await decision. Individuals have received payments of up to 400,000 and average settlements are about 7,000.
Solicitors acting for the claimants believe many childless servicewomen would have a strong case for awards to compensate for 'injury to feelings'. Successful applicants would probably be awarded several thousand pounds.
Between 1978 and 1990 about 180,000 women served in the forces, most of whom could claim they gave up the opportunity to have a child. The biggest difficulty would be proving to an Employment Appeal Tribunal that a woman wanted a child and suffered emotional damage.
The issue is highlighted by Michael Rubenstein, a lawyer specialising in sex discrimination cases, who argues in Equal Opportunities Review that those servicewoman who chose not to have a child were discriminated against in the same way as those who left.
He says: 'According to the Employment Appeal Tribunal the award for injury to feelings to a dismissed servicewoman should reflect 'her frustration, anger and bitterness at having her legitimate and honourable aspirations thwarted by the MoD's unlawful behaviour'. The same principle should apply to the women who stayed.'
Leading article, page 17
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments