Citations: [2005] EWCA Civ 1432 Links: Bailii Statutes: Equal Pay Act 1970 1 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Discrimination, Employment Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.236352

The claimants claimed equal pay, asserting use of particular comparators. The Trust said that there was a genuine material factor justifying the difference in pay. Held: To constitute a single source for the purpose of article 141, it is not enough for the non-RVI claimants to show that they have the same employer as the … Continue reading Armstrong and others v Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Hospital Trust: CA 21 Dec 2005

No sex discrimination was involved in company’s retirement benefits scheme even though it was affected by differences for part time workers, and even though more women worked part time Citations: Gazette 26-Feb-1998, Times 29-Dec-1997, [1998] 1 All ER 805, [1997] EWCA Civ 3037, [1999] ICR 319, [1998] IRLR 138 Links: Bailii Statutes: Equal Pay Act … Continue reading Barry v Midland Bank Plc: CA 18 Dec 1997

Equal pay claim – Whether difference in pay due to material factor other than sex Judges: Maurice Kay VP, Rimer, Tomlinson LJJ Citations: [2012] EWCA Civ 413, [2012] Eq LR 480, [2012] ICR 1216, [2012] IRLR 507, [2012] WLR(D) 113 Links: Bailii, WLRD Statutes: Equal Pay Act 1970 1(3) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Appeal … Continue reading Council of The City of Sunderland v Brennan and Others: CA 3 Apr 2012

The Council appealed against an order dismissing its application for the claimants’ claims under equal pay legislation to be struck out for want of jurisdiction. The claims had been brought in the High Court rather than te hEmployment Tribunal, thus extending the effective limitation date from 6 months to six years. Held: The Council’s appeal … Continue reading Birmingham City Council v Abdulla and Others: CA 29 Nov 2011

EAT EQUAL PAY ACT – Other establishments PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – 2002 Act and pre-action requirementsThree groups of appeals arising out of mass equal pay litigation (A) Amendment permitted to correct misdescriptions by Claimants of the jobs that they were doing (B) Employees employed by the Council in non-teaching roles in … Continue reading Beddoes and Others v Birmingham City Council: EAT 9 May 2011

EAT EQUAL PAY ACT SEX DISCRIMINATION – JurisdictionWhether allocation of share options, which differed between Claimant and her male comparator, gave rise to a claim under the Equal Pay Act 1970 or Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (see SDA s6(6)). On the facts found, the scheme being truly discretionary, the claim fell under the SDA. Since … Continue reading Hosso v European Credit Management Ltd: EAT 7 Jan 2011

The claimants appealed against the strike out of their claims for damages for breach of contract on imposing changes in employment contract and conditions. The County Court had accepted the Council’s arguments on the construction and application of s.2(3) and struck out the equal pay claims saying that the expiry of time for presenting the … Continue reading Ashby and Others v Birmingham City Council: QBD 3 Mar 2011

The defendant applied for an order declaring that the claim would better be brought in an employment tribunal and that accordingly the County court should decline jurisdiction. Held: The application was dismissed: ‘ I reject the submission by the Defendant that convenience must be judged in some abstract way by reference to whether a case … Continue reading Abdulla and Others v Birmingham City Council: QBD 17 Dec 2010

The employer had altered existing employment contracts. The claimants having commenced discrimination claims then sought to add to the existing proceedings comparators from different job groups. The tribunal had been asked whether, given that this amounted to a new claim (applying Bainbridge), that new claim was out of time and if so whether its discretion … Continue reading North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust v Fox and Others: CA 30 Jun 2010

The appellant challenged dismissal of her claim for equal pay. It had been rejected on the ground that the employer had shown a material factor justifying the difference in pay. Held: Enderby establishes that the burden of proving sex discrimination lies initially on the employee. The burden of proof in indirect discrimination cases should be … Continue reading Nelson v Carillion Services Ltd: CA 15 Apr 2003

The defendant implemented a voluntary retirement scheme under which benefits were calculated according to the period of service of the employee. The plaintiff claimed that the scheme discriminated against workers who had taken career breaks, and therefore against women. Held: A severance pay scheme, which calculated the amount payable according to length of service and … Continue reading Barry v Midland Bank Plc: HL 22 Jul 1999

The employees appealed against dismissal of their claims of sex discrimination, saying that the employer’s explanation of the pay differential was not adequate. Held: The appeal succeeded. The tribunal had failed to distinguish between what was given namely an account and explanation of the differences, and a non-discriminatory reason for the differences whuch had not … Continue reading Gibson and Others v Sheffield City Council: CA 10 Feb 2010

The employees appealed against dismissal of their equal pay claims. They said that having been transferred under a TUPE arrangement, and now having to claim against the new employer, they argued that the six months time limit started from the time of the transfer. Held: The appeal failed. The TUPE regulations would not put an … Continue reading EA Gutridge and Others v Sodexo and Another: CA 14 Jul 2009

Not upheld Judges: Mummery. Lewison LJJ, Sirark Waller Citations: [2012] EWCA Civ 1621, [2013] Eq LR 130, [2013] IRLR 206 Links: Bailii Statutes: Equal Pay Act 1970 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Appeal from – The Audit Commission v Haq and Others EAT 18-Mar-2011 EAT EQUAL PAY ACT – Material Factor Defence and JustificationTwo roles … Continue reading Haq and Others v The Audit Commission: CA 6 Dec 2012

EAT EQUAL PAY ACT – Material Factor Defence and JustificationTwo roles (‘IIO’ and ‘SIIO’) amalgamated into a new role (‘SIO’), on the basis that affected employees retain their existing points on the relevant pay scale – Following amalgamation the two highest-paid of the eleven ISOs are the only two males, both ex-SIIOs – Common ground … Continue reading The Audit Commission v Haq and Others: EAT 18 Mar 2011

EAT EQUAL PAY ACT: Article 141/European lawEPA and Article 141 claims. The appeal and cross appeals give rise to various EPA issues; whether, like Article 141, section 1(6) requires a single source, that is a single body responsible for the inequality of pay which could restore equal treatment, or whether it is a complete code … Continue reading North Cumbria Acute Hospitals NHS Trust v Potter and others: EAT 18 Dec 2008

eat EQUAL PAY ACT: Material factor defence and justification An Employment Tribunal did not err when it found that bonus schemes created in the 1970s in order to improve productivity were a sham and could not be used in justification as a genuine material factor to a claim of equal pay. The Tribunal erred in … Continue reading Hartlepool Borough Council and Another v Dolphin and others: EAT 15 Sep 2008

EAT Equal Pay Act 1970 s1(2)(c) claim in respect of period prior to implementation of JES which banded Claimant together with her male comparators. Effect of that banding on s1(2)(c) claim. Whether requirement for Independent Expert ought to be withdrawn. Proper exercise of discretion by Employment Judge. Appeal against refusal to withdraw requirement dismissed. Citations: … Continue reading Hovell v Ashford and St Peter’s Hospital NHS Trust: EAT 13 Aug 2008

EAT Equal Pay Act – Equal value/Material factor defenceTribunal Chairman correct in refusing to allow an equal value expert on a GMF hearing. Judges: Ansell J Citations: [2007] UKEAT 0428 – 07 – 1812 Links: Bailii Statutes: Equal Pay Act 1970 Employment, Discrimination Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262897

EAT Equal Pay Act – Material factor defence The claimant police officers received less than their male comparator doing like work. The reason was that he worked shifts involving night work and received a special payment (effectively a bonus) for this, but they did not work those hours because they were incompatible with their child … Continue reading West Midlands Police v Blackburn and Another: EAT 11 Dec 2007

The council appealed against a finding of discrimination under the 1970 Act, saying it was impermissible to use as a comparator somebody found after a job evaluation study to be of a different, but lower grade, but with higher pay. Held: The appeal failed. The Act implemented a European Directive and should be read purposively. … Continue reading Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v Bainbridge and others: CA 21 Sep 2007

EAT Equal Pay Act – Material factor defence – In an equal pay claim involving a presumption of direct discrimination the genuine material factor defence requires justification by objective criteria.The claimant appealed dismissal of her action for equal pay, saying that the ‘material factor’ defence used to justify a different payment had been incorrectly applied. … Continue reading Sharp v Caledonia Group Services Ltd: EAT 1 Nov 2005

EAT Equal Pay Act – Part-time worker’s pension. – The Employment Tribunal Chairman erred in concluding the claim was submitted out of time when a stable employment relationship had been established. The analysis of the contractual differences alone was inaccurate, and this failure to consider and apply unchallenged evidence was an error.McMullen J said that: … Continue reading Dr Thatcher v Middlesex University, Secretary of State for Education: EAT 10 Jun 2005

School catering assistants claimed equal pay under the Act. Their work had been valued as equal to that of men, but following a contracting out procedure, they earned less than men. Held: The Council had failed to show that the difference was due to a material factor other than the difference in sex. Citations: [1993] … Continue reading North Yorkshire County Council v Ratcliffe and others: EAT 21 Jan 1993

EAT Sex DiscriminationEqual Pay – Like workFemale train drivers made a claim under S1 of the Equal Pay Act 1970. The Claimants were in a group known as ‘Metro Operators’ and claimed parity of pay for like work with another group of train drivers. The majority of both groups were overwhelmingly male. The claims were … Continue reading Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive (T/A Nexus) v Best and others: EAT 21 Dec 2006

80% of the men who had been employed since 1 April 1997 had got protection under TUPE whereas only 66.66% of the women had. It was argued that this difference in percentages was sufficient to justify a claim of indirect discrimination. Held: There was no sex discrimination where there were genuine reasons for a pay … Continue reading Strathclyde Regional Council and others v Wallace and others (Scotland): HL 22 Jan 1998

EAT Equal Pay Act – Addendum to principal judgment. Part timers’ claims for membership of pension schemes only made out of time. EAT Equal Pay Act – (no sub-topic). Judges: The Honourable Mr Justice Mummery Citations: Times 02-Jul-1996, EAT/6/96, EAT/5/96, [1996] UKEAT 5 – 96 – 2406 Links: EAT, Bailii Statutes: Equal Pay Act 1970 … Continue reading Fletcher and others and Preston and others v Midland Bank Plc and Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust Secretary of State for Health and others: EAT 24 Jun 1996

An employer paying the wrong salary by mistake, led to worse treatment but not by any difference of sex which might justify or base a claim of sex discrimination. There was no reason why an employer’s own mistake could not be a sufficient factor without there being any discrimination. Citations: Ind Summary 30-Aug-1993, Times 17-Aug-1993, … Continue reading Yorkshire Blood Transfusion Service v Plaskitt: EAT 17 Aug 1993

‘Employment’ in context of a sex discrimination claim referred to a current employment contract even in context of there having been a series of repeated contracts of employment. The question was referred to the European Court of Justice. Judges: Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Goff of Chieveley Lord Nolan Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde … Continue reading Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS and Others; Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank Plc: HL 26 Feb 1998

Waite J said: ‘The concept of a contract for the engagement of personal work or labour lying outside the scope of a master-servant relationship is a wide and flexible one, intended by Parliament in our judgment to be interpreted as such.’ The concept could include somebody who was self-employed providing personal services. Judges: Waite J … Continue reading Quinnen v Hovells: 1984

Mrs Smith was employed by the respondents, wholesale dealers in pharmaceutical products, as a warehouse manageress at a weekly salary of andpound;50. She complained of discrimination in pay because her male predecessor whose post she took up after an interval of four months, received a salary of andpound;60 per week. She brought proceedings before the … Continue reading Smith v Macarthys Ltd: EAT 14 Dec 1977

Female teachers carried out the work of principal teachers but had not been appointed to the promoted post and were paid less than they would have received had they been so appointed. They claimed equal pay with male comparators who were appointed principal teachers. Like work was established and it was agreed that disparity in … Continue reading Strathclyde Regional Council v Wallace: HL 1988

Phillips J considered an alteration to the terms of an employment contract, saying: ‘One then goes on to see what the effect as prescribed is, and it is that that term, so identified, in the appellants’ contracts shall be treated, as so modified, as not to be less favourable. It seems to us that the … Continue reading Sorbie v Trust House Forte Hotels: EAT 1976

A tribunal having decided not to call for expert evidence as to the situation of comparators in an equal pay claim, dismissed the application after deciding that the appellants had no reasonable prospect of success. This was wrong, and it failed to recognise the two stages of the procedure, which should have later allowed the … Continue reading Wood and others v William Bell Ltd: EAT 8 Dec 1999

EAT EQUAL PAY ACT – Case managementThis appeal by some of the Claimants in a multiple equal pay claim, from a judgment on a PHR, raised the important question of the meaning of section 1(2) of the Equal Pay Act, as interpreted by the House of Lords in Hayward v Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Ltd [1988], … Continue reading Brownbill and Others v St Helens and Knowsley Hospital NHS Trust: EAT 6 Aug 2010