Working fathers experience sex discrimination?

Manisha Mathews
{"title":"Working fathers experience sex discrimination?","authors":"Manisha Mathews","doi":"10.1080/09649069.2023.2175550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper critiques the judgment delivered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the case of Price v Powys County Council on 31 March 2021. The judgment determined that it does not amount to sex discrimination if a mother can receive enhanced pay on adoption leave, whilst a father can only receive statutory pay on shared parental leave. The paper will reflect upon the significance of this judgment in exposing some of the reasons that have contributed towards the low uptake of shared parental leave by fathers in the United Kingdom. Focus will be placed on how the low levels of replacement pay to financially support the position of fathers in childcare has influenced the low take-up rates. Similarly, the need for an identically situated comparator under the formal equality approach adopted by the Equality Act 2010 and the court system to substantiate a discrimination claim has also contributed towards the failure to recognise the lower levels of replacement pay given to fathers as sex discrimination. This paper will conclude that a substantive equality approach would have better recognised that fathers belong to a marginalised sub-group within men who experience sex discrimination in the form of lesser financial support to undertake childcare due to the gender stereotype that fathers should be the financial breadwinner.","PeriodicalId":45633,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","volume":"45 1","pages":"84 - 87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2023.2175550","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper critiques the judgment delivered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the case of Price v Powys County Council on 31 March 2021. The judgment determined that it does not amount to sex discrimination if a mother can receive enhanced pay on adoption leave, whilst a father can only receive statutory pay on shared parental leave. The paper will reflect upon the significance of this judgment in exposing some of the reasons that have contributed towards the low uptake of shared parental leave by fathers in the United Kingdom. Focus will be placed on how the low levels of replacement pay to financially support the position of fathers in childcare has influenced the low take-up rates. Similarly, the need for an identically situated comparator under the formal equality approach adopted by the Equality Act 2010 and the court system to substantiate a discrimination claim has also contributed towards the failure to recognise the lower levels of replacement pay given to fathers as sex discrimination. This paper will conclude that a substantive equality approach would have better recognised that fathers belong to a marginalised sub-group within men who experience sex discrimination in the form of lesser financial support to undertake childcare due to the gender stereotype that fathers should be the financial breadwinner.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
职场父亲遭受性别歧视?
本文对就业上诉审裁处于2021年3月31日在普莱斯诉波伊斯县议会案中作出的判决进行了批评。判决书认为,如果母亲在领养假中获得加薪,而父亲只能在共享育儿假中获得法定工资,这并不构成性别歧视。本文将反映这一判断的重要性,揭示了一些导致英国父亲共享育儿假的原因。重点将放在为父亲在育儿方面的地位提供财政支持的替代工资水平低如何影响了低接种率。同样,根据2010年《平等法》和法院系统采用的正式平等方法,需要一个处境相同的比较国来证实歧视索赔,这也导致未能将给予父亲的较低替代工资视为性别歧视。本文将得出结论,实质性的平等方法将更好地认识到,父亲属于男性中被边缘化的子群体,由于性别刻板印象认为父亲应该是经济上的养家糊口者,他们在承担育儿工作方面的经济支持较少,因此遭受性别歧视。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
13.30%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: The Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law is concerned with social and family law and policy in a UK, European and international context. The policy of the Editors and of the Editorial Board is to provide an interdisciplinary forum to which academics and professionals working in the social welfare and related fields may turn for guidance, comment and informed debate. Features: •Articles •Cases •European Section •Current Development •Ombudsman"s Section •Book Reviews
期刊最新文献
‘Bound’ by grief post-adoption: can the artist’s book assist mothers to tell their stories? A functional approach to defining family in the High Court ‘This is counterproductive’: the design of local welfare assistance schemes in England The sharia inquiry, religious practice and muslim family law in britain Registering births: What’s care got to do with it?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1