EAT Sex Discrimination – Indirect / Justification
A policy preventing police officers in a partnership from working together in a supervisor/subordinate role had an adverse impact on women since men outnumbered women by 3 to 1. But the policy was justified by the need to ensure actual and apparent correctness in working relationships.
The Employment Tribunal had incorrectly found the pool for comparison was the group of police officers who had an existing partnership since this focused entirely on the group disadvantaged by the policy (a group on the evidence made up of 6 of the 3802 police officers). This pool was not contended for by either party. The EAT ruled that the pool was the whole of the Respondent’s workforce, police officers and support staff alike, since the policy applied across the board. Thus constituted, it was likely that the male to female ratio was likely to be even. But even on the Claimant’s case that the pool consisted of all police officers, the Judgment was unarguably correct for the policy was justified.
Judges:
His Honour Judge McMullen QC
Citations:
[2007] UKEAT 0505 – 05 – 0203, UKEAT/0505/05
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Another ECJ 27-Oct-1993
Discrimination – Shifting Burden of Proof
(Preliminary Ruling) A woman was employed as a speech therapist by the health authority. She complained of sex discrimination saying that at her level of seniority within the NHS, members of her profession which was overwhelmingly a female . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.252464