The Corinthia Group has rebutted claims of discrimination against a pregnant lawyer in five counter-protests submitted in court last week.
Discrimination is not the style nor the ethos embodied by CHI Limited or any of its other companies
The company reacted to a judicial protest filed by lawyer and mother-of-two, Anika Psaila Savona, who is seeking damages against her former employers for “illegal behaviour”.
Dr Psaila Savona – who had previously been employed with the Corinthia Group as a senior executive for nine years – was working as a lawyer with CHI Limited when without warning she received a letter on January 8, 2010, terminating her contract, six months into her pregnancy. Her case has been before the Industrial Tribunal for two years.
But Corinthia told The Sunday Times it stood by its record “as a leader in its employment practices” and insisted discrimination was not the style nor the ethos embodied by CHI or any of its other companies.
“The termination of Dr Psaila Savona’s engagement as consultant with CHI Limited was not in any way motivated by the fact that she was pregnant... and consequently her claims are completely unfounded both in fact and at law,” CHI said.
Corinthia Group chairman Alfred Pisani, CHI chief executive Tony Potter, CHI Limited, IHI plc, and Corinthia Palace Hotel Company plc all filed a counter-protest contesting her claims. CHI “categorically” denied it ended relations with Dr Psaila Savona because she was pregnant as she “is maliciously and vexatiously alleging”, and it could amply prove this.
It insisted its relationship with Dr Psaila Savona was purely one of consultancy and quoted the contract that states: “Nothing in this agreement shall be construed as creating an employment relationship between the parties.”
This is the disputed point this case – CHI is insisting Dr Psaila Savona was not an employee, while she is claiming that for all intents and purposes she was treated like one.
In an effort to substantiate this claim, she said that whenever she needed to take leave or was sick she had to inform the company, she had a company phone and her business cards carried the CHI Hotels and Resorts logo.
Dr Psaila Savona believes the tribunal will recognise “that substance will override form” when the full range of her contractual rights and obligations are taken into account. “All that is necessary to prove is subordination, which I can; the formal categorisation of a contract is not important,” she had said.
However, CHI said there was no doubt that Dr Psaila Savona, in spite of her legal background and the “excuses she is conveniently and deceptively” presenting, was conscious of the nature of the agreement she had signed.
Since the contract covered consultancy, it added, the European Court of Justice ruling cited by Dr Psaila Savona – involving EU directives that cover the concept of a pregnant worker, prohibition of a pregnant worker’s dismissal, and equal treatment for men and women – did not apply in this case.
“All CHI did was apply a clause in the consultancy contract... She is not entitled to any compensation... and should desist from continuing to harbour unfounded pretensions,” it said.
Dr Psaila Savona had said she decided to fight back and take on Corinthia, a big international hotel chain, to set an example for those in a similar predicament and ensure women’s rights were not trampled upon.
However, Corinthia Group defended its credentials and said it had seen female participation rate in its companies increase steadily over the years, partly thanks to its various family-friendly measures, “both before and after maternity” to attract and retain experienced female staff.