I too understand where this woman is coming from - it's an area labelled Employment Law.
It is easy to sympathise with small companies who are bearing the brunt of maternity leave costs, but that does not excuse them from flagrently breaching the regulations regarding such absences.
I have become fed up with the amount of school years ruined by female teachers having back to back pregnancies, its wall to wall substitute teachers ad nauseum.
If you cant afford to have children don't have them.
How fair is it for small companies to bear the cost or even the taxpayer to shell out benefits.
Why don't all prospective mothers take a token job knowing full well they wont be there.
The employer was in the wrong and was found so by the tribunal. Back to back pregnancies are a pain in the @rse especially for small businesses but that is the law. I know of a female solicitor who had three pregnancies on the trot and took full maternity leave entitlement. Although telling her employer she intended to return to work, she actually resigned the day before she was due back. Nice one eh?
The company broke the law so by that they were in the wrong and she was in the right but if I was in charge of a small company I wouldn't emply women who were likely to take lots of maternity leave, I'd just keep my mouth shut about it. I don't think these laws do women any favours in the long run.
I don't understand why anyone would feel sorry for employers who fail to follow the employment law. They are badly managed and ill advised. Good on her for not letting them get away with it,.