Single mother wins discrimination case against the army

dirtydog

dirtydog

dirtydog

Permabanned
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
47,396
Location
Essex
Army chiefs face the nightmare prospect of having to consider their soldiers' childcare problems before giving them orders.

The devastating blow follows a successful sex discrimination claim brought by a single mother.

Tilern DeBique, 28, says she was forced to leave the Army because she was expected to be available for duty around the clock.

She was formally disciplined when she failed to appear on parade because she had to look after her daughter.

She was told the Army was a 'war-fighting machine' and 'unsuitable for a single mother who couldn't sort out her childcare arrangements'.

Now she is in line for a payout of at least £100,000 for loss of earnings, injury to feelings and aggravated damages.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/12/article-1265446-091AC317000005DC-857_233x471.jpg

Miss DeBique also won a claim of race discrimination because Army chiefs did not let her bring her half-sister from the Caribbean to look after the child.
Click to expand...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Army-failed-provide-adequate-childcare.html


What an insane ruling - no wonder this woman is grinning :(

Ho hotlinking.
 
I cant believe this either, I know its her kid, but come on... imagine it...

"Wait a minute, I can't go to war, there is no one to look after my kids this weekend"

She had to have knew what the army was like when she joined up...

Stelly
 
Why don't people realise that the military is NOT a normal career, it's a wholly different work institution.

Miss DeBique also won a claim of race discrimination because Army chiefs did not let her bring her half-sister from the Caribbean to look after the child.

Don't follow that.
 
I'd rather she be AWOL than leave her kids without appropriate supervision. I don't think this woman should be vilified for being a mother first and a soldier second. Did the army even attempt to engage with her about finding a suitable solution to her childcare problems?
 
scorza said:
I'd rather she be AWOL than leave her kids without appropriate supervision. I don't think this woman should be vilified for being a mother first and a soldier second. Did the army even attempt to engage with her about finding a suitable solution to her childcare problems?
Click to expand...

It's less about her going AWOL, and more about her claiming damages when the army disciplines her. It's not the army's responsibility to look after her children. She chose to join the army, she chose to engage in an act which led to her pregnancy and she chose to remain in the army with the child. If she can't handle the basic responsibility of caring for her child, then she shouldn't have the child, let alone be in the army of all places.
 
scorza said:
Did the army even attempt to engage with her about finding a suitable solution to her childcare problems?
Click to expand...

From reading the BBC article it seems that this was one of the major problems, the MoD didn't make enough of an attempt to find a workable solution to her childcare problems.

However they did apparently offer her an alternative job, you're right she shouldn't be criticised for being a mother first but equally if she's incapable of doing her job for that reason (and being in the army is a rather different proposition to working in an office say) then taking up another proffered occupation which is more flexible to your needs does not seem unreasonable.
 
scorza said:
I'd rather she be AWOL than leave her kids without appropriate supervision. I don't think this woman should be vilified for being a mother first and a soldier second. Did the army even attempt to engage with her about finding a suitable solution to her childcare problems?
Click to expand...

erm hows that the Army's problem ? Are you telling me that every company out there now has to not only think about the care of their employee but their family too ??? No sorry mate you are wrong.

Especially in the case of the Army they are the defense of the country. People joining the army must know of the commitments before joining. If they clearly state that "expected to be available for duty around the clock." then you should be able to fully accept and commit to them terms.

I cannot believe this, it really does just show how the nation is going....
 
Greenlizard0 said:
Miss DeBique also won a claim of race discrimination because Army chiefs did not let her bring her half-sister from the Caribbean to look after the child.

Don't follow that.
Click to expand...

From the little I read it seems the army had no problem with her coming over but due to permits she could only stay for six months. Seems harsh blaming the army for something that I would have thought was out with there control.
 
And from reading more unbiased articles.

  • She had served in the Grenadines & St.Vincent for a number of years previous - & had a total of 7 years service in the army
  • The child was born during service (she joined the army before getting pregnant)
  • The army said that her relative could only enter on a limited visa and never liased with immigration to see what could be done regarding the childcare.
  • She lived in barracks at the base - and her commanding officer knew where she was and was informed as to why she wasn't there.
  • She joined up in March 2001 and was allowed to work restricted hours during the week and avoid weekend duties after the birth of her daughter in 2005.
  • Her argument "Provisions are made for single parents. However, these provisions are not extended to Foreign and Commonwealth soldiers." was totally correct & therefor won her the case.

Whilst I don't agree with the payout - or her action... the army should have seen this coming & done a little more for her considering her service and situation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom