EAT Sex Discrimination – Inferring Discrimination
The claimant sought compenstion for sex discrimination. She appealed a finding of a material factor justifying the difference in pay.
Held: The new provisions included reference to the Code of Practice issued by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which provided that the employer should provide a transparent system for setting pay so as to encourage equal treatment. The tribunal set out guidelines now to be followed under the new rules for determining whether discrimination had occurred, emphasising the need to follow the two stage procedure carefully. Inferences drawn against the employer under the new sections might also inform decisions under the 1970 Act.
Judges:
His Hon Judge Ansell
Citations:
EAT/18/03, Times 16-Apr-2003, Gazette 05-Jun-2003, [2003] EAT 18 – 03 – 0304, [2003] UKEAT 18 – 03 – 0304, [2003] ICR 1205
Links:
Statutes:
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 56A 63A, Sex Discrimination (Indirect Discrimination and Burden of Proof) Regulations 2001 (2001 No 2660), Equal Pay Act 1970
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Updated – King v Great Britain China Centre CA 1991
The court considered the nature of evidence which will be available to tribunals considering a race discrimination claim.
Held: A complainant must prove his or her case on the balance of probabilities, but it is unusual to find direct evidence . .
Followed – Brunnhofer v Bank der Osterreichischen Postparkasse AG ECJ 26-Jun-2001
Europa Equal pay for men and women – Conditions of application – Difference in pay – Definition of ‘the same work and ‘work of equal value – Classification, under a collective agreement, in the same job category . .
Followed – Bilka-Kaufhaus v Webers Von Hartz ECJ 13-May-1986
ECJ An occupational pension scheme which, although established in accordance with statutory provisions, is based on an agreement between the employer and employee representatives constitutes an integral part of . .
Cited by:
Applied – Igen Ltd v Wong CA 18-Feb-2005
Proving Discrimination – Two Stage Process
Each appeal raised procedural issues in discrimination cases, asking where, under the new regulations, the burden of proof had shifted.
Held: The new situation required a two stage process before a complaint could be upheld. First the claimant . .
Cited – Sharp v Caledonia Group Services Ltd EAT 1-Nov-2005
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 . .
Cited – Madarassy v Nomura International Plc CA 26-Jan-2007
The claimant appealed against adverse findings on her claims of sex discrimination. The court considered questions arising from the provisions relating to the transfer of the burden of proof in a discrimination case.
Held: Questions of the . .
Cited – Igen Ltd (Fomerly Leeds Careers Guidance) and others v K Wong EAT 5-Apr-2004
EAT Race Discrimination
Burden of proof in Race Relations Act 1976 s 54A. Whether a prima facie case had been made to transfer the burden. Application of Barton v Investec. . .
Cited – High Quality Lifestyles Ltd v Watts EAT 10-Apr-2006
EAT The Employment Tribunal had erred in its construction of direct discrimination under s3A(5) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as amended when it failed to construct a correct hypothetical comparator . .
Cited – Fecitt and Others v NHS Manchester EAT 23-Nov-2010
EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosure
S.47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that ‘A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Employment
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.180594