Extension of maternity benefits from 5 October 2008... There is now no distinction to be drawn between the provision of non-paid benefits during ordinary maternity leave and additional maternity leave.  In practice, this means that benefits such as provision of a company car, gym membership and insurances should be continued throughout the whole of the maternity leave period.  Most importantly though, there should now be no distinction between accrual of contractual annual leave throughout the maternity leave period.  Previously a distinction could be drawn and only statutory annual leave would accrue during the additional maternity leave period.  This is no longer the case.  Other benefits which rely on accrual of seniority or length of service will also be affected.  An employer should therefore count an employee's additional maternity leave period toward their accrued length of service.   These rights will apply to all employees whose expected week of childbirth is on or after 5th October 2008.  Employers are advised to amend their staff handbooks or maternity policies now. The Amendment Regulations made the expected changes to the provisions on discrimination on grounds of pregnancy and maternity leave and the definition of harassment following the successful challenge by the EOC against the UK Government's implementation of the Equal Treatment Directive.    Extending ability to claim part-time worker discrimination... Part-time workers should now find it easier to bring their claims. The EAT has set aside its decision in Gibson and Scottish Ambulance in the recent case of Sharma & Others v. Manchester City Council in this regard.  Previously, in order to succeed with a claim of part-time worker discrimination, the part-time working had to be the "sole reason" for the less favourable treatment.  This is no longer the case.    The Council in Sharma claimed that the fact that the employees worked part-time was not the "sole reason" for the dismissal because not all of its part-timers had been treated the same.  The Council had three different categories of part-time workers.  The EAT found that the treatment was less favourable on grounds of their part-time status and was not objectively justifiable.  This decision effectively extends the remit for claiming part-time working discrimination.   The lucky employer ... The case of RDF Media v Clements in the High Court has a lesson for all employers not to over-react or make derogatory statements about an individual whilst still employed, even if the employer believes the individual has acted in breach of contract.  In this case the employee, who was also a director, accepted a job offer with a competitor and in handing in his notice sought to obtain an early release from his contract.  The employer was aware that the employee intended to join a competitor and was affronted by the employee's attempt to do so as by joining a competitor the employee would breach restrictive covenants contained in his contract of employment and a share purchase agreement to which he was a party.  The employer made derogatory statements about him, which were subsequently published.  The employee sought to claim constructive unfair dismissal based on these statements in order to release himself from his contractual restrictive covenants. Fortunately for the employer, the employee had already breached confidentiality obligations that he owed to the employer when he interviewed with the competitor.  As a result, he could not rely on the subsequent breach by the employer as releasing him from the contractual restrictions. The employer was therefore lucky. We would advise more caution on an employer before potentially risking losing the benefit of restrictive covenants in this way.  It will not always be obvious that the employee in those circumstances had breached confidentiality as there is no breach simply by interviewing with a competitor while still employed.    The over-hasty employer... An employer's failure to consider ill-health retirement when dismissing an employee, of long-term sick, for health reasons was unfair.  In the case of First West Yorkshire Limited (First Leeds) v Haigh, the EAT criticised First Leeds for its desire to avoid the costs of ill-health retirement.  The case very much turns on its facts. It is also a reminder that an employer cannot dismiss if in doing so would deprive an employee of benefit under a PHI scheme unless it expressly reserves the right to do so (Aspden v. Webbs Poultry & Meat Group (Holdings) Limited). In this case, First Leeds had decided to dismiss an employee on long-term sick without waiting for a final medical report from a consultant, as recommended by the employer's own occupational health advisor.  Without the specialist's report, the occupational health adviser could not determine whether or not the individual would be "permanently disabled" and therefore entitled to benefit under the PHI scheme.  Ironically, when the report came through from the specialist (post dismissal and post commencement of litigation), the specialist concluded that the employee was not permanently disabled.  Nevertheless, the employee succeeded in claiming unfair dismissal.