A FORMER mayor has won £7,000 damages after suing her own council in row over breastfeeding her son.
A county court judge found Trafford council guilty of sex discrimination and awarded damages for personal suffering to Labour councillor Pauleen Lane.
The judge also decided that Trafford should pay her legal costs and the council now faces a total legal bill of almost £200,000.
The case has triggered a political storm after the borough's ruling Tories accused Coun Lane of `acting out of political spite' and putting her own interests before the interests of taxpayers.
Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party said: "The Tories in Trafford should have gracefully accepted the judgement of the court. Instead, they've added insult to injury by launching a party political attack."
Coun Lane, a part-time lecturer at Manchester University, strongly refutes the claim and insists that she strived to avoid the issue becoming an embarrassment for the council.
At one point she offered to settle the matter if the council apologised and paid £5,000 to her mayoral charity.
The case will have implications for local authorities throughout Britain.
Trafford had tried at an early court hearing to argue that the case should not go ahead as Coun Lane was performing civic duties and not an employee, therefore, she did have the same rights.
Salford County Court was told that Coun Lane became mayor in May 2005 and until December 2005 she was only allowed the civic car when she found a second adult to accompany her because she wanted to breastfeed Oscar and have him with her at all times.
After breast feeding Oscar in the foyer of the council chamber before a rehearsal for her instalment as mayor, the council's head of mayoral services, Ms Margaret Slattery, made a formal complaint, saying she found the sight `offensive'.
Tory council leader, Susan Williams, said: "Local Conservatives disagree with the judgement.
"Coun Lane was acting out of political spite, seeking to make a political issue out of, what is essentially, a personal matter."
What do you think of the council decision? Have your say.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 18 and replies | View All
Worsel (24/08/2007 at 10:46)
The Catcher, In the Rye (24/08/2007 at 11:44)
Joey, Ashton under Lyne, (24/08/2007 at 11:55)
It has cost every council tax payer in Trafford about 5 quid each to feed that kiddie.
Pescado (24/08/2007 at 16:26)
markyboy (24/08/2007 at 16:55)
she should have shown a little bit of discretion of feeding her kid. public places & for that public service vehicles are NOT the place to do this.
cllr williams says this was done for political spite, and as a resident of trafford i feel the same.
i couldnt give a flying fig what the pvc brigade think, but i would have thought that she would of tried to keep her dignity.
all she has achieved is costing the taxpayers of trafford more money, this comes from the same party that say the tories are cutting services - well they will now wont they cllr lane??.
gladys rowbotham, Manchester (24/08/2007 at 17:53)
I'd like a first class single please!
sallyg, Lancs (24/08/2007 at 19:15)
Why the need for him to travel in the same car as her? Why the need to feed him DURING meetings? Why not before and after?
It's all about making the right choices. It should NOT be a matter of "rights".
I've breastfed my children for almost five years and managed to do so while working.
Seems this woman wanted to make a name for herself.
And the Judge fell for it.
Alan Crump, usa (24/08/2007 at 19:19)
mancunian, australia (24/08/2007 at 22:51)
osmudge, Auckland, New Zealand (25/08/2007 at 05:08)
ace, manchester (25/08/2007 at 12:07)
LookingForLogic, Stockport (26/08/2007 at 01:32)
Ace what are mums supposed to do? Most of us do our best & yes perhaps she sould have put off her 'work' role for a year or so till the baby wasn't so dependant, but she chose to try & make it work. The council should have suppoted her in this, though I have to question the need for a car & driver provided by the council in all this, she can claim her mileage like the rest of us at a much lower cost.
Angry Derk (26/08/2007 at 10:48)
Ms D, Manchester (26/08/2007 at 15:13)
markyboy (26/08/2007 at 16:37)
ace, manchester (26/08/2007 at 16:56)
Sorry i didnt mean it like that what i should have said was women should make their minds up ? do they want to have children or have a profession? .could you imagine working in a steel works as a crane driver with your child? of course you wouldnt,so why expect to take your child to civil duties?.Knowing full well you have to keep feeding a child while trying to fullfil your civil duty.Get a child minder and express your milk .
Ms D, Manchester (26/08/2007 at 20:46)
As many women prove, we can do both but expecting to take your child into work is too much. Now this woman has won her case, what's to stop other women working for local goverment to expect the same ? I do not hold this woman up as some sort of bastion for women's rights. Instead, she has only set women back with her petulant behaviour.
aki (12/09/2007 at 13:00)
Unfortunately parents do not have a clear cut choice with regards to deciding 'career or parenthood' for economic and cultural reasons/expectations. Not to mention unforseen circumstances that are a one off.
I personally do not see a problem with bringing children to work if it is a safe environment and the children are disciplined enough to not become a nuisance. My parents did this with me and my brother. My mother was a waitress and father a saleman. I do this with my own baby who is now one. Such interaction can be beneficial for teaching children respect and responsibility.