The Constabulary appealed against a decision that they were guilty of indirect sex discrimination, as regards the way they had implemented part time working and shift duties. The parties differed as the pool of employees from which the comparison was to be taken. There were unresolved issues of fact, and if these would affect the decision, the case would have to be remitted to the ET for hearing. More women than men could not comply with the new arrangements, and the difficulties were associated with child care responsibilities. The test was in two stages, was there a disparate effect of the condition applied, and was the detriment justified. The question was one of discretion, and the tribunal had not erred in law.
EAT Sex Discrimination – Indirect
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Charles
Citations:
EAT/503/00, [2001] UKEAT 503 – 00 – 2809
Links:
Statutes:
Citing:
Cited – London Underground Limited v Edwards CA 21-May-1998
A new driver roster imposing shift working timetables discriminated against women since significantly less in proportion of women could meet the new arrangements – indirect discrimination . .
Cited – Seymour-Smith and Perez; Regina v Secretary of State for Employment, Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another ECJ 9-Feb-1999
Awards made by an industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal are equivalent to pay for equal pay purposes. A system which produced a differential effect between sexes was not indirect discrimination unless the difference in treatment between men and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police, Discrimination
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168336