A charity has lost a High Court challenge against the government after claiming its coronavirus financial support scheme sexually discriminated against self-employed mothers.
Pregnant Then Screwed brought legal action against the Treasury over its Self-Employment Income Support Scheme, arguing the way it was calculated left tens of thousands of women who had maternity leave with less money than others.
The programme was introduced last year to help self-employed workers affected by the pandemic, but because payments are assessed based on average monthly profits over the previous three tax years, campaigners claimed it was discriminatory and breached equality laws.
The case was brought by the charity, founded by Joeli Brearley, under its official name, The Motherhood Plan, and also by Kerry Chamberlain, a self-employed energy analyst with three young children, whose income was significantly reduced in recent years as a result of maternity leave.
Mums lose High Court battle against Chancellor s Self-Employment Income Support Scheme birminghammail.co.uk - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from birminghammail.co.uk Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Who? Faith Salih, associate solicitor in the public law and human rights team, Irwin Mitchell.
Why is she in the news? The firm provided legal advice to charity Birthrights after a poll by campaign group Pregnant Then Screwed found that some women attended their scans alone and were told that they could not record or take photographs during the appointment.
Thoughts on the case: ‘Birthrights is a charity that campaigns for respectful and safe maternity care that protects human rights. During the pandemic, they have received hundreds of enquiries about whether partners should be able to attend scans and, if not, whether they should be able to take part in scans remotely. It is not uncommon for other medical appointments to be recorded by patients and it is legal to do so. Birthrights felt NHS trusts were adopting prohibitive policies in respect of ultrasound examinations without considering all of the evidence which needs to be taken into account, and in particular the benefit to