Secretary of State for Social Security v Walter: CA 6 Dec 2001

Where a full time student became pregnant and had to suspend her studies, the regulations still treated her as a student, and disentitled her from benefits. The claimant alleged that this was sex discrimination.
Held: It was not. The starting point had to be that the Regulations made no explicit distinction between a man and a woman, nor with whether a woman was pregnant or not. She claimed that she had suffered a detriment and that since it was associated with her benefit it was discriminatory. Not everything which affected pregnant women was discriminatory.

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Robert Walker And Lord Justice Keene

Citations:

Times 13-Dec-2001, Gazette 06-Feb-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 1913

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No 207), Equal Treatment Directive 79/7/EEC (OJ 1979 L6/24)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedWebb v EMO Air Cargo ECJ 14-Jul-1994
Community Law protects women from dismissal during pregnancy save in exceptional circumstances. It was discriminatory to dismiss a female not on a fixed term contract for pregnancy. The Court rejected an interpretation of the Directive that would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Benefits

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167841