Station Road, Sidcup

How can we help?

Please fill in this form and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Please enter your name
Please enter your email address
Please enter your telephone number
Please enter a question
Please let us know how you heard about us
Please enter the verification code

We’ll only use this information to handle your enquiry and we won’t share it with any third parties. For more details see our Privacy Policy

Father Excluded from Babysitting Role Wins Sex Discrimination Damages

When recruiting staff, you may have a particular type of candidate in mind, but that is precisely the mindset that can give rise to discrimination. A company that advertised on social media for 'mothers' to work as babysitters fell into exactly that trap and was ordered to pay compensation to a disappointed male applicant (Wright v Pottiebee Inc Ltd).

The civil servant, an experienced, hands-on father of two, tried to apply for a babysitting role after finding the advert online. He said that the very first question on the application form was 'Are you a mother?' When he contacted the company, he was informed that it only allowed women to work for it as babysitters.

A highly educated Sunday school volunteer and Air Cadets instructor, the father was deeply offended by that response. He said it implied that fathers are incompetent parents, that his experience counted for nothing simply because of his gender and that he could not be trusted to care for children.

In upholding his sex discrimination complaint, an Employment Tribunal (ET) noted that the company had put in no defence to his claim. He was an honest witness who had not over-egged the pudding. He was understandably hurt by what he viewed as the company's utterly ill-informed undervaluation of a father's role.

The ET acknowledged that it was a one-off occurrence and that the discrimination was likely to have arisen from ignorance rather than a deliberate intention to cause harm. The company was ordered to pay the man £200 in respect of lost earnings and a further £1,300 for injury to his feelings.

The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.